Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV18506, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18506    Hearing Date: June 7, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Plaintiffs Maria Botham, Georgia Botham and Lucia Botham.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On June 6, 2022, Maria Botham, Georgia Botham, and Lucia Botham, a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Maria Botham (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint against Josue Alcaraz (“Alcaraz”), the City of Los Angeles (“City”), the County of Los Angeles (“County”), the State of California (“State”), and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for negligence, dangerous condition of public property, and negligent act or omission of government employee, all arising out of a motor vehicle accident on June 22, 2021, near the intersection of South Rimpau Boulevard and West Third Street in Los Angeles.

On June 9, 2022, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to name Estate of Daniel Ibrahim Lazarnejad as Doe 1.

On July 13, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against the same defendants for the same causes of action.

In September and November 2022, the Court, at the request of Plaintiffs, dismissed County and State without prejudice.

On May 15, 2024, the Court, at the request of Plaintiffs, dismissed Alcaraz with prejudice.

On May 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion to continue trial.  No opposition has been filed.

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

Plaintiffs request a trial continuance. Plaintiffs contend there is good cause for a continuance as Plaintiffs have served City of Los Angeles, but City of Los Angeles has yet to respond to the First Amended Complaint. (De Vore Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs contend they wish to avoid trial and seek to informally resolve this matter, and so, they need to time to conduct discovery and attempt to negotiate a settlement. (Id., ¶¶ 5, 6.)

The Court finds that good cause has been shown for the requested continuance.  As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a trial continuance.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to continue trial.

The Court ORDERS that the trial date is advanced and continued to a date that is on or after January 14, 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.