Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV42013, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV42013 Hearing Date: October 20, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE¿
The motion of Defendants Katrina Michelle Thomas, Mar Pizza, Inc., Domino’s
Pizza LLC, and Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC to continue trial is GRANTED.
Background¿
¿
This is an action for negligence arising
from a vehicle collision which took place on April 2, 2021. On November 15, 2021, Plaintiff Oscar
Gallardo Tirado (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Katrina Michelle Thomas, Mar Pizza, Inc., Domino’s Pizza LLC, and
Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, and Does 1 through 50. On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint against the same defendants for motor vehicle and general
negligence.
On August 15, 2023, Defendants Mar Pizza, Inc., Domino’s Pizza LLC,
and Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC filed their Answer. On September 6, 2023, Defendant Katrina
Michelle Thomas filed her Answer.
On September 25, 2023, Defendants Katrina Michelle Thomas, Mar
Pizza, Inc., Domino’s Pizza LLC, and Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC (“Defendants”)
filed the instant motion to continue the trial date of November 6, 2023 to a
date in late 2024 that is convenient to the Court.
No opposition has been filed.
Legal Standard¿
Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of
civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).)¿ Continuances
are thus generally disfavored.¿ (See Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (b).)¿
Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates.¿ (Hernandez
v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.)¿ Each request for
continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an
affirmative showing of good cause.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd.
(c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.)¿¿¿
Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1)
the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness,
or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to
death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of
trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the
substitution of trial counsel 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, subd. (c).)¿¿
The court must also consider such relevant factors as:
(1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous
continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by 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, subd.
(d).)¿
¿¿
Discussion¿
Defendants request the Court to continue the trial date of November
6, 2023 to a date in late 2024 that is convenient to the Court.
The Court finds good cause exists to continue trial.
Specifically, Plaintiff only recently served Defendants, and Defendants timely
filed their Answers to the operative First Amended Complaint. (Declaration of Carla M. Barcelos-Pettit, ¶¶ 4-5.) There is outstanding discovery that needs to
be conducted due to no fault of Defendants.
(Barcelos-Pettit Decl. ¶¶ 6-9, 11-12.)
Further, Plaintiff
has agreed to the continuance, as the parties completed and filed a Court
Stipulation to continue this Trial (but it was rejected for the age of the
case). (Barcelos-Pettit Decl. ¶ 10.)
¿
Conclusion¿
¿
Defendants’ motion to
continue trial is GRANTED.
The trial date is continued to a date in September 2024. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines
are reset based on the new trial date.¿
Moving party is ordered to give notice.¿¿¿
¿¿