Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV26716, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26716    Hearing Date: April 26, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Continue filed by Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On August 17, 2022, Antonio Manrriquez and Maria Manrriquez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Albertsons Companies, Inc., Pavilions Sherman Oaks, and Does 1 to 100 for premises liability, general negligence, and loss of consortium causes of action arising from an incident occurring on August 19, 2020. On October 25, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the

First Amended Complaint.

 On January 17, 2023, The Vons Companies, Inc., erroneously sued asAlbertson’s Companies, Inc (“Defendant”) filed its answer. Defendant also filed a cross-complaint against Mitsubishi Electric US Inc. for breach of contract, express and implied indemnity, declaratory relief, contribution and apportionment. On April 10, 2023, Mitsubishi Electric US Inc. filed its answer to the cross-complaint.

On March 29, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for a trial continuance. 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

Trial is set for June 13, 2024. (Macksoud Decl., ¶ 3.) The parties have agreed on a mediator, however, the first availability is July 19 2024, after the current trial date. (Id., ¶ 4.) The parties have agreed to continue trial, a signed stipulation has been attached. (Id.; see also Exh. A.)

The Court finds that Defendant has met their burden showing good cause for a continuance for the parties to participate in mediation. Further, the parties have agreed to the continuance by signed stipulation.

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Motion to Continue is GRANTED.

The trial date is advanced and continued to approximately October 15, 2024.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.