Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV19591, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19591    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 29

Quintana v. Burger King Corporation
22STCV19591
Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is denied.

Background

On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff Sandra Quintana (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against

Defendants Burger King Corporation, California Food Management, LLC, and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for general negligence and premises liability arising from a trip and fall incident on June 29, 2020, at or near 2600 Long Beach Boulevard in Long Beach.

On July 22, 2022, Defendant California Food Management, LLC (“Defendant”) filed its Answer.

On August 12, 2022, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed Defendant Burger King Corporation without prejudice.

On December 4, 2024, new counsel substituted into the case for Defendant.

On December 9, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial date.

No opposition has been filed.

On filing, the case was assigned a trial date of December 14, 2023.  Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court in December 2023 continued the trial date to April 12, 2024.  Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court in February 2024 continued the trial date to August 12, 2024.  Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court in June 2024 continued the trial date to February 28, 2025.

Legal Standard

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule

3.1332, subd. (a).)  Continuances are thus generally disfavored.  (See id., rule 3.1332, subd.

(c).)  Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates.  (Hernandez v.

Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.)  Each request for continuance must be

considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause. 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.)   

Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential

lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the

unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the

unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4)

the substitution of trial counsel 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, subd. (c).)  

The court must also consider such relevant factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date;

(2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused

by 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.  (Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (d).) 

Discussion

Defendant requests the Court to continue the February 28, 2025 trial date and all related

pre-trial and discovery deadlines at least six months, to a new trial date of August 28, 2025,

or on a date thereafter.   

The motion is unopposed.

Defendant argues that good cause exists for the requested continuance as new counsel for

Defendant substituted into this case on December 4, 2024, less than three months before

the current trial date of February 28, 2025. (Declaration of Gabriella Castro ¶ 3.) New

counsel understands that the parties have engaged in written discovery, depositions, of the

parties, and Plaintiff has submitted to two Independent Medical Examinations. (Id. ¶ 4.)

The parties have not designated experts, nor has expert discovery begun. (Id. ¶ 5.)

Defendant’s new counsel requires time to review the materials in this matter to prepare for

expert discovery and trial. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 6-7.)

Good cause has not been shown.  The trial date has already been continued three times.  Voluntary substitution of trial counsel is not good cause for a continuance.  The parties have had ample time to conduct discovery.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to continue trial.

Moving party to give notice.