Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV43294, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV43294 Hearing Date: May 2, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Mario
Gonzalez.
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On November 23, 2021, Mayra Elizalde
(“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Mario Gonzalez, Mercury Insurance
Company, California Insurance Guarantee Association, and Does 1 through 100,
asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising
from an accident occurring on December 13, 2019.
On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed
a request for dismissal of Mercury Insurance Company and California Insurance
Guarantee Association.
Mario Gonzalez (“Defendant”) filed
his answer on March 21, 2022.
On April 10, 2023, the Court
continued the trial date to April 10, 2024, based on a stipulation of the
parties.
On March 11, 2024, the parties submitted
a stipulation to continue trial to June 12, 2024, but it was rejected as it did
not show good cause for the requested continuance.
On April 8, 2024, Defendant filed
this motion to continue trial for approximately 60 days. No opposition has been
filed. In the interim, the Court
continued the trial date to May 2, subject to a further continuance based on
the ruling on this motion.
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 the parties are engaged in settlement discussions to
resolve the matter, and agreed to defer expert discovery to continue settlement
negotiations. (Seeger Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5.) Defendant attaches a signed stipulation
by the parties to continue trial 60-days. (Exh. A.)
The Court finds there is good cause to continue trial for a short
period of time as the parties are in active settlement discussions and have
agreed to a short continuance. Further, there has only been one prior
continuance in this matter.
Therefore, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.
Conclusion
The motion to
continue trial is GRANTED.
The trial date
is continued for approximately 60 days.
The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new
trial date.
Moving Party is
ORDERED to give notice.