Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV23628, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV23628 Hearing Date: October 30, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendant Mizanur Rahman’s Motion to Continue Trial Date and All Trial-Related Dates
is DENIED.
Background
On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff Michelle Valdez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Mizanur Rahman (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 25, asserting causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence arising out of a vehicle accident on March 19, 2021.
On October 11, 2022, Defendant filed his Answer to the Complaint.
On July 17, 2023, counsel from the Ford, Walker firm associated in as co-counsel for Defendant. On August 21, 2023, counsel from the Ford, Walker firm substituted as counsel for Defendant.
On September 21, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to continue trial and all trial-related dates.
Plaintiff did not file any opposition to the motion.
On October 16, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition.
Legal Standard
“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a 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).)
“A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).)
“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate 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. These 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.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)
Discussion
Defendant Mizanur Rahman (“Defendant”) has filed a motion seeking an order continuing trial and all trial-related dates.
The trial is set for January 18, and Final Status Conference on January 4, 2024.
Defendant argues that there is good cause to continue trial for the following reasons. “On August 21, 2023, Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar substituted in as counsel for Defendant. New Defense Counsel seeks additional time to conduct discovery and prepare this case properly for trial. Specifically, Defendant needs to take plaintiff’s deposition, obtain plaintiff’s medical records and possibly have plaintiff submit to an independent medical examination. Defendant will be irreparably harmed and substantially prejudiced if his new counsel is not permitted to conduct discovery as to Plaintiff’s claims/injuries.” (Motion, declaration of Christine A. Kingston (“Kingston Decl.”), ¶ 5.) “[T]he second factor in Rule 3.1332(d) which considers previous continuances applies here, because this is the first request for a continuance by any party in this case, and this case is less than two years old..” (Kingston Decl., ¶ 8.) “The Defendant is requesting a six-month continuance to a date in July 2024 so they still can appropriately prepare for and defend their respective positions at time of trial based upon the recent substitution of new counsel as well as the ‘excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence.’” (Kingston Decl., ¶ 9.) “[O]nce Defendant has finished conducting necessary discovery and is able to review and evaluate all the evidence, he will be more fully prepared to evaluate the merits of Plaintiff’s contentions and to participate in mediation or another form of dispute resolution to see if the case can settle without the need for trial.” (Kingston Decl., ¶ 10.)
“A trial continuance and extension of the all cut-off dates in this matter would also best serve the interests of justice. It would be unjust to deny a request for a trial continuance at a time when the Parties are simply not prepared for trial. It would also undermine public policy and the Court’s own policy of having a fair trial where lawsuits can be decided on their merits without prejudicing either side.” (Kingston Decl., ¶ 11.)
The Court has considered all of the facts and circumstances and finds that Defendant has not shown good cause for a trial continuance. Voluntary substitution of counsel is not a basis for a continuance of trial. Defendant explains the reasons that Defendant would like additional time to prepare for trial, but Defendant has made no showing of any diligence in completing discovery (or attempting to complete discovery) in the year since Defendant answered the complaint. A desire for more time is not, in itself, enough.
Conclusion
Defendant Mizanur Rahman’s Motion to Continue Trial Date and All Trial-Related Dates
Is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.