Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV30727, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV30727, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30727 Hearing Date: March 7, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Continue filed jointly by Plaintiff Felisha Willis and Defendant Southwest Airlines.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff Felisha Willis (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Southwest Airlines (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 20 for Negligence and Negligent Hiring, Retention and Supervision causes of action arising from injuries from failing to provide Plaintiff with a wheelchair for the exiting from her flight on September 21, 2020.

On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively “the Parties”) jointly filed this motion to continue.

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

The Parties contend both counsels are unavailable for trial on July 17, 2024. (Dababneh Decl., ¶ 11.) Defendant has trials on July 19, 26, 29, and August 2, and 6. (Motion, 7:12-13.) Further, the Parties contend discovery requires additional time, including Defendant’s need to subpoena Plaintiff’s treatment and billing records from her out of state medical providers, as well as take out of state witness depositions. (Dababneh Decl., ¶ 8.) The Parties submitted a stipulation to continue trial to October 4, 2024, but on January 4, 2024, trial was continued to July 17, 2024. (Id., ¶ 9.)

The Court finds the Parties have shown good cause for a continuance due to the need to complete discovery and due to the unavailability of counsel. Therefore, the motion to continue is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The motion to continue is GRANTED.

The date of trial is advanced and continued to approximately October 4, 2024. The final status conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Final Status Conference is continued to 09/20/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring
Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 10/04/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse.

Defendant is ORDERED to give notice.