Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV40844, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV40844, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40844 Hearing Date: February 14, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial Date, filed by Defendants Classic Distributing and Beverage Group, Inc., and Michael Wayne Smith.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

This action stems from an automobile collision that occurred on December 5, 2019. (Complaint, ¶ GN-1.) Dagoberto Cardenas (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Michael Wayne Smith driving a vehicle owned by Classic Distributing and Beverage Group, Inc., collided with his vehicle. (Id.) Plaintiff subsequently filed suit on November 4, 2021.

Defendants Classic Distributing and Beverage Group, Inc., and Michael Wayne Smith (collectively “Defendants”) filed a Motion to Continue Trial on January 3, 2024. 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

Defendant contends that there is good cause for a continuance of trial as the parties need time to participate in mediation and complete discovery. (Volk Decl., ¶ 10.) The parties filed a stipulation on December 18, 2023, but it was rejected by the Court because too many stipulations for continuance had already been approved. (Id. ¶¶ 7 & 8.) Trial date is currently set for May 6, 2024. (Id., ¶ 5.) Defense counsel states that she recently became the handling attorney on December 4, 2023, and needs more time to evaluate and review the case. (Id., ¶ 6.) Defense counsel also lists the necessary discovery that needs to be completed including revised subpoenas for records, and attain the IME of Plaintiff report. (Id.¸¶¶ 10 & 11.)

No opposition has been filed. Accordingly, it appears that the requested continuance would not cause any unfair prejudice to any party.

The Court finds Defendant has shown good cause for a continuance due to the need to complete discovery and possible mediate the case. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Continue is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Motion to Continue is GRANTED.

The trial date is advanced and continued to November 4, 2024. Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Final Status Conference is continued to 10/21/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring
Street Courthouse. Jury Trial is continued to 11/04/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.