Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV40615, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV40615 Hearing Date: April 18, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Continue Trial filed by Cross-Defendant BC
Rentals, LLC.
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On November
3, 2021, Juan Perez Rojas, Jennifer Navarro, Katelyn Perez and Kevin Perez
(collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against California Department of
Transportation, Ronald Arthur Wilkinson, C.R. England, Inc., Christopher Huynh
Le, and Does 1 through 125, for negligence and dangerous condition of public
property arising out of an accident occurring on July 18, 2020.
On May
25, 2022, Defendant C.R. England, Inc. and Roland Wilkinson filed a
cross-complaint against California Department of Transportation and Christopher
Huynh Le for (1) equitable indemnity, (2) apportionment and contribution, and
(3) declaratory relief. On October 13, 2022, an amendment to the
cross-complaint was filed adding Guy F. Atkinson Construction, LLC as Roe 1. On
March 27, 2023, the First Amended Cross-Complaint was filed. On October 17,
2023, a Roe Amendment of the First Amended Cross-Complaint was filed adding BC
Rentals, LLC dba BC Traffic Specialist as Roe 2 (“BC”).
On
November 3, 2022, Defendant People of the State of California, acting by and
through the Department of Transportation filed a cross-complaint against Ronald
Arthur Wilkinson, C.R. England, Inc., Christopher Huynh, and Roes 1 to 10 for (1)
implied indemnity, (2) contribution, (3) comparative fault, and (4) declaratory
relief.
On
November 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint.
On
January 6, 2023, Guy F. Atkinson Construction filed its cross-complaint against
Moes 1 through 20. On November 1, 2023, the First Amended Cross-Complaint was
filed adding BC as cross-defendant.
On March 15, 2024, BC filed this motion to continue trial.
No opposition has been filed.
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.)
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. Circumstances 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).)
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
BC contends good cause exists to continue trial as it was recently added
to this matter and needs an opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for
trial. The current trial date is June 7, 2024; BC filed its answer in this
matter on March 15, 2024.
California Rules of Court,
rule 3.1332(c)(5) provides there is good cause for a continuance if a new party
is added and has not had reasonable time to conduct discovery. BC has not yet
had, and would not by the discovery cut off have, a reasonable time to conduct
discovery in this matter.
All parties have agreed to the
continuance and have stated that they will not suffer any prejudice. The parties request that trial be continued
to February 7, 2025. (See Exh. E.)
The Court finds BC has established good cause for a continuance of
trial.
Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS
the Motion to Continue Trial.
The Court
advances and continues the trial date to February 7, 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines
are reset based on the new trial date.
Moving Party is
ORDERED to give notice.