Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV09804, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV09804 Hearing Date: August 25, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendants’ motion to continue trial and all trial-related
dates is GRANTED.
Legal Standard
Per California Rules of Court (CRC), rule 3.1332, subdivision (c): the
court may grant a continuance for “good cause,” which includes: (1)
unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or
other excusable circumstances; (2) unavailability of a party due to death,
illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) unavailability of trial counsel
due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) substitution of
trial counsel required in the interests of justice; (5) addition of a new party
or other parties in regard to a new party’s involvement hasn’t had a reasonable
opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; (6) party’s excused
inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence
despite diligent efforts; or (7) significant, unanticipated change in the
status of the case as a result of which indicates the case is not ready for
trial. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)
Other relevant factors to be considered 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” (CRC Rule 3.1332(d).)
“A trial court has great discretion in the disposition of an application
for a continuance. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, the court’s
determination will not be disturbed.” (Estate of Smith v. Atkinson
(1973) 9 Cal.3d 74, 81.) “Such discretion is abused, however, where the lack of
a continuance results in the denial of a fair hearing.” (Rankin v. Curtis
(1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 939, 947.)
Discussion
Here, Defendants move to continue trial to February 2024, and requests
that all trial-related dates be based on the new trial date. Defendants state
that they need time to obtain Plaintiff Jorge’s employment records from various
employers and assert that certain post-accident employment information was not
disclosed in discovery. (Declaration of Abraham S. Odabachian at ¶¶ 3-5.) There
are also calendar conflicts with one of Defendant’s experts (who is recovering
from surgery) and trial counsel. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.)
This is the first requested continuance. Plaintiffs have not opposed the
motion and so it does not appear that they would suffer any unfair prejudice
from the requested relief.
The Court finds good cause. The motion is granted.
Conclusion
The Court
GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue trial and all related trial dates.
Trial is
advanced and continued to early February 2024. Final Status Conference and all
deadlines are reset based on new trial date.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.