Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32697, Date: 2025-03-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV32697 Hearing Date: March 17, 2025 Dept: 29
Gill v. Dhillon
Foods, Inc.
22STCV32697
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial
Tentative
The motion is denied as moot, as the requested
relief has already been granted.
Background
On October 5, 2022, Randy Gill (“Plaintiff”) filed a
complaint against Dhillon Foods, Inc. dba Jack in the Box, Rosegarden Center,
LLC, and Westridge Commercial, Inc. for premises liability and general
negligence causes of action.
On March 27, 2023, Dhillon Foods filed an answer and a cross-complaint
against Roes 1 through 15.
On March 30, 2023, Rosegarden Center, LLC and Westridge
Commercial, Inc (“Moving Defendants”) filed an answer.
On December 12, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a
cross-complaint Dhillon Foods, Inc dba Jack in the Box.
On
February 20, 2025, Moving Defendants filed this motion to continue trial. No
opposition has been filed.
When
the motion was filed, trial was scheduled for April 7, 2025.
At
a hearing on February 21, 2025, the Court continued trial to August 8, 2025,
based on the oral stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown.
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).)
Discussion
Moving Defendants request a trial continuance. The Court has already continued the trial
date from April 7 to August 8, 2025.
As the requested
relief has already been granted, the motion is denied a moot.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to
continue trial.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.