Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV21435, Date: 2024-03-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV21435 Hearing Date: March 27, 2024 Dept: 29
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On July 1, 2022, Amelita D. Zavaleta Bautista, Rosa Imelda Ramirez, and Orlando Garcia Ramos (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Elissa Esther Leon, Fortino Leon (collectively “Defendants”) and Does 1 to 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence causes of action arising from an automobile accident occurring on July 5, 2020. Defendants filed their answer on October 5, 2022.
On March 1, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.
Legal Standard
Code Civ. Proc. § 128(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.)
Each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits according to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c). The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances 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).)
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 sets forth a list of non-exhaustive factors to be analyzed when determining whether good cause for a trial continuance is present. A court considers factors such as:
“(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 contend good cause exists to continue trial as the three Plaintiffs in this matter have died. (Motion, 3:8-9.) Defense counsel states that Plaintiffs’ counsel is in the process of obtaining successors-in-interest for Plaintiffs and as such, Defendants will need more time to conduct discovery. (Collins Decl., ¶¶3, 4.) A stipulation from the parties is attached as Exhibit 1.
Trial is scheduled for April 29, 2024.
The Court finds Defendants have established good cause to continue trial to allow time for Plaintiffs to file for successors-in-interest as well as for the parties to complete discovery.
Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.
Conclusion
The Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.
The trial date is advanced and continued to July 1, 2024. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.
Final Status Conference is continued to 06/17/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 07/01/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.