Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV43765, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV43765    Hearing Date: October 20, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The motion to continue trial and related deadlines is granted.

Background 

Plaintiff Travis Thomas (“Plaintiff”) alleges that, on October 30, 2020, while walking across a street in Azusa, CA, Plaintiff was struck by a semi-trailer-truck being driven by Defendant Gregorio Montespadilla (“Montespadilla”).

On December 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Montespadilla, Logistics A & A Trucking, Inc. (“Logistics”) and Does 1-50 for negligence and negligent entrustment.  According to the complaint, Logistics is the owner of the semi-trailer-truck.

On January 26, 2022, Defendants Montespadilla and Logistics filed an answer to the comlaint.

On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to continue trial from December 7, 2023, to July 9, 2024.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation): (1) unavailability of trial counsel or witnesses due to “death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”; (2) the addition of a new party depriving the new party (or other parties) from conducting discovery and preparing for trial; (3) “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts”; or (4) “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case” preventing it from being ready for trial.  (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)   

Other relevant considerations may include: “(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.”  (Id., Rule 3.1332(d).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings.  In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.) 

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to continue trial to July 2024.

Trial is currently set to begin on December 7, 2023.  There is one prior continuance, by stipulation, in this matter. The length of the continuance requested is roughly eight months. Defendants do not oppose this motion.

Plaintiff first contends that good cause exists to grant a continuance because Plaintiff’s initial lead trial counsel departed the law firm, causing delays in preparing the case. (Muhtar Decl., ¶ 2.) Additionally, certain of Plaintiff’s previously retained experts unexpectedly informed counsel they would be unavailable, causing delay as counsel attempted to retain new experts. (Muhtar Decl., ¶ 2.)

Next, Plaintiff argues that due to the schedules of the parties, their counsels, and their experts, they will not be able to complete the discovery necessary to adequately prepare for trial. (Muhtar Decl., ¶ 3.) Specifically, Plaintiff is yet to take the depositions of Logistics and designated experts. (Muhtar Decl., ¶ 3.)

Third, Plaintiff argues that a continuance may help the parties avoid trial as they are considering entering private mediation. (Muhtar Decl., ¶ 4.)

Fourth, Plaintiff contends that his counsel’s law firm has 17 trials scheduled between now and June, 2024. (Muhtar Decl., ¶ 5.) Additionally, Plaintiff’s new lead counsel is expecting a child at the end of October, 2023, and will likely be unavailable for some time afterwards. (Muhtar Decl., ¶ 5.)

Sixth, Plaintiff contends that the parties will both be irreparably prejudiced if the instant motion is denied. (Muhtar Decl., ¶ 4.)

Lastly, Defendants submitted a declaration in support of continuing trial. (Muhtar Decl., ¶ 4.)

Considering the apparent inability of the parties to complete discovery by the current trial date, counsel’s unavailability, the potential for mediation, and the absence of prejudice to either party that would result from continuing the motion, the Court finds that good cause exists to continue trial.

Thus, the motion is granted.

Conclusion

The motion to continue trial and all related deadlines is GRANTED.

Trial is continued to mid July 2024.  Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving party to give notice.