Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV14568, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14568    Hearing Date: August 18, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE 

Defendant Lawtton Hugo Test’s motion to continue trial and related dates is GRANTED. 

Background¿ 

On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff Rani Setiawati (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Lawtton Hugo Test (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle, general negligence, and negligence per se arising from an automobile accident on April 2, 2021.  Defendant filed an answer on June 29, 2022.

On July 25, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to continue trial and all related dates.  No opposition has been filed.

Trial is currently set for October 30, 2023.

Legal Standard 

“Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”¿ (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)¿ A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.¿ (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)¿ California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.  Whether the parties have stipulated to the postponement is a relevant factor for consideration.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 595.2, but see Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753, 756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely “directory”].)    

Discussion 

Here, Defendant seeks a continuance of trial based upon the unavailability of counsel from October 24, 2023 to November 7, 2023.  Defendant relies on a declaration of Defendant’s counsel, James J. McGarry (“Counsel”).  Specifically, a brief continuance of approximately 60-90 days is being sought due to Counsel’s unavailability from October 24, 2023 to November 7, 2023 due to a preplanned, prepaid vacation.  (Declaration of James McGarry, ¶ 6.)  Counsel states the parties have diligently pursued discovery since the inception of litigation, and have participated in two (2) mediation sessions. (McGarry Decl., ¶ 4.)  Counsel also states there has been no continuance of the original FSC and trial dates, nor any requests for a continuance.  (McGarry Decl., ¶ 5.)  Further, a continuance will allow for the parties to complete all necessary discovery and expert discovery and to prepare for trial.  (McGarry Decl., ¶ 7.) 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 as trial counsel is unavailable because of excusable circumstances.  Also, it does not appear Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a trial continuance, and Plaintiff has not filed an opposition contending otherwise.  However, Defendant will be prejudiced if trial is not continued.  Other factors that weigh in favor of continuing trial  include the brief length of the continuance requested and that there has not been any previous continuance.   

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Conclusion 

Defendant Lawtton Hugo Test’s motion to continue trial and related dates is GRANTED. 

The October 30, 2023 trial date is continued to early January 2024.  Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on new trial date.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file the proof of service with the Court within five days.