Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV33889, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33889    Hearing Date: October 26, 2023    Dept: 29

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background 

On September 14, 2021, Plaintiff Moshe Golzar, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Esther Akhamzadeh filed a complaint against Defendants Robert Hanasab and 822 Robertson, LLC, alleging (1) premises liability; (2) personal injury; (3) negligence; and (4) general damages.

On December 1, 2022, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Robert Hanasab and 822 Robertson, LLC filed a cross complaint against Cross-Defendant Hafco Group, Inc.

On September 28, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion to continue trial. On October 3, 2023, Cross-Defendant filed a joinder of motion to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

Trial is set for January 10, 2024.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation): (1) unavailability of trial counsel or witnesses due to “death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”; (2) the addition of a new party depriving the new party (or other parties) from conducting discovery and preparing for trial; (3) “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts”; or (4) “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case” preventing it from being ready for trial. (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)   

Other relevant considerations may include: “(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.” (Id., Rule 3.1332(d).) 

CCP section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings.  In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.) 

Discussion

Defendants move to continue trial to February 2025 or thereafter that is convenient to the Court. Defendants argue that good cause exists as Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication cannot be heard without a continuance of the trial date due to the nature of the Court's calendar and available Motion for Summary Adjudication hearing dates.

Cross-Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on September 20, 2023, that is set for hearing on December 19, 2024.  Defendants filed a motion for summary adjudication on October 24, 2023, that is set for hearing on December 13, 2024.

Defendants state that (1) it is in the interest of justice to order a trial continuance to allow their Motion for Summary Adjudication, which was attempted to be set in a timely manner, to be heard; (2) all parties are agreeable to the continuance such that there is no prejudice to be had; and (3) the sought continuance will also allow Cross-Defendant Hafco' s filed Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard and will also allow the parties to attend mediation in this case which is in the process of being scheduled and is anticipated to take place early next year.

The Court finds that there is good cause for continuing the trial date to allow Defendants and Cross-Defendant’s motion for summary judgment to be heard. Further, it does not appear that Plaintiff would be unfairly prejudiced by a continuance, as Plaintiff has not opposed the continuance. Thus, the motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial.

Trial is continued to a date in early February 2025.  Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.