Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV32352, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32352    Hearing Date: April 23, 2025    Dept: 29

Santos v. Uribe
21STCV32352
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On August 31, 2021, Dora Santos (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Andrew Uribe, Patricia Uribe (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 25 for negligence arising from an automobile accident on September 6, 2019.

When the complaint was filed, the Court assigned a trial date of February 28, 2023.

At the Final Status Conference on February 14, 2023, the Court noted that no proof of service had been filed; the Court vacated the trial date and set an OSC re dismissal for August 31, 2023 (subsequently continued several times).

On February 27, 2024, Defendants filed an answer.

On May 23, 2024, the Court set trial for May 28, 2025.

On March 28, 2025, Defendants filed this motion to continue trial. The hearing was initially scheduled for May 12 and it was advanced, on Defendants’ ex parte application, to April 23.

Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 9, and Defendants filed a reply on April 16.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), provides that the court has the power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. “The power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.)

“A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances.” (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.) 

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm.  All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).)

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)  “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”  (Ibid.)  Circumstances that may support a finding of good cause include: 

“(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 

(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 

(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 

(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; 

(5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; 

(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or 

(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) 

“In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that the court may consider: 

“(1) The proximity of the trial date; 

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; 

(3) The length of the continuance requested; 

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; 

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; 

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; 

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and 

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.” 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

Discussion

Defendants seek a trial continuance.  Although the accident at issue occurred in 2019, Plaintiff delayed in filing and service, and as a result Defendants did not appear until February 2024.  Defendants propounded discovery in July 2024, but Plaintiff did not serve responses until February 2025.  (Dondanville Decl., ¶ 5.)  Defendants then noticed and took Plaintiff’s deposition on March 20, 2025.  (Id., ¶ 6.)  The written discovery responses and deposition testimony revealed new issues, including multiple prior accidents and ongoing treatment.  (Id., ¶¶ 7-10.)

Notwithstanding the arguments presented by Plaintiff in her opposition, the Court finds good cause for the requested continuance. 

The motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

The Court CONTINUES trial for approximately 90 days.  The Final Status Conference and all discovery deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.