Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32615, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV32615 Hearing Date: January 3, 2024 Dept: 29
Tentative
The
motion to continue trial is GRANTED in part.
Background
On October 5,
2022, Plaintiff Anahit Durgaryan (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against Defendants
Oscar Armando Cardenas, Wilber Abel Vasquez, Oganesian Enterprises, Inc.,
Mediwaste Disposal, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA LLC,
and Does 1 through 20, asserting causes of action for (1) Motor Vehicle
Negligence and (2) Negligence Per Se stemming from a motor vehicle collision
occurring on July 21, 2021.
On February 2,
2023, Defendant Wilber Abel Vasquez (“Moving Party”) filed his Cross-Complaint
against Oscar Armando Cardenas, Oganesian Enterprises, Inc., Mediwaste
Disposal, LLC, and Roes 1 through 15.
On November 20, 2023, Moving Party filed this motion to
continue the trial. On December 18, 2023, Defendants Mediwaste Disposal, LLC,
Oganesian Enterprises, Inc, and Oscar Armando Cardenas filed a Declaration in
Support of Moving Party’s motion.
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 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
On November
20, 2023, Moving Party filed this motion to continue the trial. Moving Party
contends that current Trial date of April 3, 2024, does not afford him enough
time to complete necessary discovery including expert discovery and the
depositions of percipient and expert witnesses. (Huang Decl., ¶ 7.) Moving
Party contends this is the first request for a continuance. (Id., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff has not agreed to stipulate to the
continuance while all defendants have. (Id., ¶11.) Moving Party contends no party would
be prejudiced by the continuance. (Id., ¶ 12.)
Moving
Party reserved a hearing for summary judgment for July 5, 2024, which is past
the current Trial date. (Id., ¶
9.) Moving Party contends that
without the continuance they will be severely prejudiced because they should
have the opportunity to have the Summary Judgment motion heard. (Id., ¶13.)
The Court gives the arguments about a
contemplated summary judgment motion little weight, however, as all that has
occurred is that a hearing date has been reserved; no motion has been filed.
Plaintiff
has filed no opposition.
The Court finds that Moving Party has established
good cause for some continuance of the trial, as Moving Party has not yet had
the opportunity to complete discovery.
Based on the absence of any opposition, it appears that no party will be
unfairly prejudiced from the requested continuance.
Good cause has not been shown, however, for the
requested continuance of trial to January 2025.
The Court finds that good cause has been shown for a six month
continuance of the trial date, to early October 2024.
Therefore, the Court GRANTS in part the
motion to continue.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS
the motion to continue trial; Trial is continued to early October 2024. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines
are reset based on the new trial date.
Moving Party is
ORDERED to give notice.