Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV34088, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV34088, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34088 Hearing Date: October 11, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

Code Civ. Proc. § 128(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.) The decision whether to grant a continuance is within the trial court’s discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abused discretion. (Jurado v. Toys “R” Us, Inc. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1615, 1617.)

A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or ex parte application, with supporting declarations. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(b).) The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered. (Ibid.)

Each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits according to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c). The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c).) Good cause may be present where there is a “substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c)(4).) Good cause may also be present where a party has not been unable “to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c)(6).)

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 sets forth a list of non-exhaustive factors to be analyzed when determining whether good cause for a trial continuance is present. A court considers factors such as: (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

This action involves an alleged slip-and-fall at Defendant’s store. Discovery in this matter is ongoing, and Plaintiff completed a defense medical examination on September 19, 2023. (Lee Decl., ¶ 3.) The parties have agreed to mediate and have scheduled a mediation on January 22, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 4-7.) The current trial date, however, is on December 1, 2023. The parties jointly request a continuance of the trial date to at least April 2024 so that the parties may mediate and, if the matter is not resolved, complete discovery prior to trial. (Id., ¶¶ 5-6.)

The Court finds that good cause exists to continue trial. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to continue trial date until at least April 2024. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.