Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV05797, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05797    Hearing Date: February 20, 2025    Dept: 29

Romero v. Ramirez
22STCV05797
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted. 

Background

This matter involves three consolidated cases arising out of a vehicle accident on January 10, 2022.

In the first-filed case (Case No. 22STCV05797), Nathan Romero and Bryan Zapata filed a complaint on February 15, 2022, against Filiberto Ramirez and MCL & Associates, Inc. dba Leduff Trucking (collectively “Defendants”).

In the second-filed case, Timothy Hutchinson filed a complaint on May 31, 2023, against MCL & Associates, Inc.

In the third-filed case, Norguard Insurance Company filed a complaint on January 8, 2024, against MCL & Associates, Inc.

On February 26, 2024, the three cases were related. On March 1, 2024, the cases were consolidated.

On January 24, 2025, Defendants filed this motion to continue trial.

On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff Romero’s attorney filed a declaration in support for the continuance.

On February 11, 2025, Plaintiff Hutchinson filed a partial opposition to the motion.

On February 13, 2025, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff Hutchinson’s partial opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for April 23, 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).)

Discussion

Defendants seek a continuance as discovery is still ongoing. Defendants contend Plaintiff Zapata has yet to respond to discovery requests. (Campo Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendants maintain that after discovery responses are received, Plaintiff Zapata’s deposition and possible medical examination will need to be conducted. (Id., ¶ 4.) One of Defendants’ lawyers will be engaged in trial through April 9, 2025, and another has a prepaid vacation from May 13 to May 24, 2025. (Id.¸¶ 5, 7.)

Plaintiff Romero states that counsel will be engaged in trial through April 30, 2025, and that the deposition of Defendant Ramirez and the deposition of the person most knowledgeable for Defendant MCL & Associates, Inc. have yet to be conducted (Taherian Decl., ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff Hutchinson does not oppose a continuance but requests that it be limited to three months rather than the requested five months.

Reviewing all of the papers, the Court finds Defendants have established good cause for a continuance to late September 2025. The Court is particularly concerned about the reported lack of response to discovery from Plaintiff Zapata and the potential need for motion practice. 

Having said that, the Court is also concerned about the lack of progress in this case.  To be sure, there were three formerly separate cases, but the last appearance by a named defendant in any of the cases was on January 31, 2024.  The parties have already had a full year to conduct discovery (and, if necessary, to obtain the assistance of the Court), and with this requested continuance the parties will have more than an additional six months.  It is time to get this case ready for trial, and the Court does not expect that there will be a need for any further continuances.

Finally, the Court notes that the requested new trial date (September 26, 2025) is a court holiday.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

The Court CONTINUES the trial to a date on or after September 30, 2025.

The Final Status Conference and all discovery deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.