Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV47469, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV47469 Hearing Date: January 6, 2025 Dept: 29
Reyes v. Chang
21STCV47469
Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial
Tentative
The motion is GRANTED.
Background
On December 30, 2021, Blanca Reyes (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint
against Soo Jin Chang, DDS, Lari Soman Esmailian, DDS, Santo Tomas Dental Group,
and Does 1 through 100 for medical negligence arising out of a dental procedure
occurring on February 27, 2021.
On January 12, 2022, Soma Esmailian Lari, DMD, (erroneously sued as Lari
Soman Esmailian, DDS) filed an answer. On January 31, 2022, Soo J. Chang, DDS
filed an answer to complaint. On February 15, 2022, Evan Farr DDS, Inc dba
Santo Tomas Dental Group filed an answer.
On October 10, 2024, summary judgment was granted for Evan Farr DDS, Inc
dba Santo Tomas Dental Group.
On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue trial. The hearing was initially set for January 28,
2025, and was advanced, on Plaintiff’s ex parte application, to January 6.
No opposition has been filed.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 22, 2025.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 128,
subdivision (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.)
“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil
cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm.
All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as
certain.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(a).)
“Although continuances of trials are
disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own
merits.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a
continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the
continuance.” (Ibid.) Circumstances that may support a finding 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).)
“In ruling on a motion or application for
continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are
relevant to the determination.” (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) California
Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that
the court may consider:
“(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).)
“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment
motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529; accord Cole v. Superior
Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.)
Discussion
Plaintiff’s counsel has experienced, and continues
to suffer from, serious medical issues (Goldberg Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) Counsel states
that his recovery will take “a few more months.” (Id., ¶ 3.)
No opposition has been filed.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has
established good cause for a continuance.
Accordingly, the
request to continue trial is GRANTED.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to
continue trial.
The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or
after July 22, 2025. The Final Status
Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.