Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV23942, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23942    Hearing Date: March 13, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Direct Chassislink, Inc.

Tentative

The motion is granted in part.

Background

On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff Janine Cervantes-Castanon (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against ACI Trucking, Inc. (“ACI”), AEF Freight USA, Inc., David Cai, and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence arising out of an accident occurring on July 29, 2020, on the I-10 Freeway near Rosemead Boulevard in Rosemead.

On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Direct Chassislink, Inc. (“Defendant”) as Doe 1.

On July 27, 2023, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint for indemnity and contribution against ACI.  ACI filed an answer to the cross-complaint on October 24, 2023.

On February 15, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

Preliminary Issue Regarding Filing Notice of Related Cases

On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of related cases, identifying an earlier-filed case, Velasquez vs. ACI Trucking Inc. (Case No. 22STCV13160) as a related case.  This notice should have been filed “in all pending cases listed in the notice” and “served on all parties in these cases.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(d).)  Instead, the notice was filed only in this case.

Whether two cases are to be ordered related is a decision that must be made by “the judge who has the earliest filed case.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A).)  That is the judge in Department 28 (Jaskol, J.), not the judge in this department.  Accordingly, the judge in this department did not have the authority to rule on the notice of related cases.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to refile the notice of related cases in both this case and Case No. 22STCV13160 and to serve the notice on all parties in both cases.

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.) 

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

Defendant contends that good cause for continuance exists as substantial discovery remains to be conducted and Defendant has reserved a hearing date for a motion for summary judgment for the Court’s first available date, which was February 20, 2025.  (Daniel Decl., ¶¶ 3, 6.)  Trial is currently set for May 20, 2024.

The reservation of a hearing date for a summary judgment motion is not good cause for a trial continuance.  A reserved hearing date may or may not lead to a timely filed motion.  Of course, a party has a right to have a timely filed motion for summary judgment heard before trial.  (Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529.)  But no such motion has been filed here.

The need to conduct additional discovery, however, does establish good cause for a trial continuance.  The Court also notes that one party has appeared only recently, and that the related cases issue has yet to be resolved.

No party has argued that the requested continuance would cause any unfair prejudice or otherwise opposed the motion.

Accordingly, the motion is granted in part.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS in part the motion to continue trial.

The trial date is advanced and continued to a date in mid September 2024.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to refile the notice of related cases in both this case and Case No. 22STCV13160 and to serve the notice on all parties in both cases.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.