Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV26615, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV26615 Hearing Date: January 10, 2025 Dept: 29
Shabtai v. Zarabian
22STCV26615
Defendants’ Motion to Continue
Tentative
The motion is GRANTED.
Background
On August 17, 2022, Avraham Shabtai (“Plaintiff”) filed a
complaint against Mahyar Matthew Zarabian, Babak Zarabian, Artemis Barani
(collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action
for (1) assault, (2) battery, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress,
(4) negligence, (5) Ralphs Civil Rights Act – Violation of Cal. Civ. Code Sec.
51.7, and (6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress arising out of an
alleged attack on June 11, 2022.
On September 21, 2022, Defendants filed an answer and
cross-complaint against Plaintiff, Ash Capital Inc. dba Essentialyfe, Woodshill
Holding, LLC, and Does 1 through 100.
On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed an answer to the
cross-complaint. On January 17, 2023, Woodshill Holding, LLC filed an answer to
the cross-complaint.
On filing, the case was assigned a trial date of February
14, 2024. In December 2023, on the
stipulation of the parties, the Court continue the trial date to June 13,
2024. In May 2024, on Cross-Defendant’s
ex parte application, the Court continued the trial date to March 10, 2025.
On November 25, 2024, Defendants 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).)
“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment
motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529; accord Cole v. Superior
Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.)
Discussion
Defendants seek to
continue trial for 2-3 months. Defendants state that all parties join in the
motion.
Defendants request
the continuance based on a change in counsel in September 2024 and a planned
mediation. (Grossman Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.) Although
voluntary substitution of counsel is ordinarily not good cause for a trial
continuance, under all of the facts and circumstances presented here, the Court
finds that good cause has been established.
The motion is
granted.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motion to continue filed by Defendants
Mahyar Zarabian, Babak Zarabian and Artemis Barani.
Trial is continued to a date on or after May 15,
2025. The Final Status Conference and
all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.