Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV34217, Date: 2024-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34217    Hearing Date: January 8, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial Date, filed by Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.

Tentative

The motion is GRANTED.

Background

On October 24, 2022, Plaintiff Jasmin Sheniya Norma Flowers (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Bryan Pyo Kwon, Barbara Booduk Kwon, Proland Property Management Company, LLC, Proland Real Estate Corporation, Alajae Jenkins, and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and premises liability arising out of an incident that allegedly occurred on September 7, 2022.

On December 19, 2022, Defendant Bryan P. Kwon filed his Answer to the Complaint.  On the same day, he filed a cross-complaint against Alajae Jenkins and Does 1 through 100.

On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff amended her Complaint to name Proland Property Management as Doe 1.

On May 16, 2023, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed all claims against Proland Property Management Company, LLC, and Proland Real Estate Corporation, without prejudice.

On June 9, 2023, Defendants Barbara Booduk Kwon and Proland Property Management filed their Answer to the Complaint.

On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff amended her Complaint to name 7-Eleven, Inc. as Doe 2.

On September 11, 2023, Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On December 13, 2023, Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. filed this motion to continue trial.  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

Moving Defendant states they were served in August 2023, and first appeared in September. (Akopyan Decl., ¶5, 6.) Moving Defendant states it has made diligent efforts to litigate and has served written discovery. (Id., ¶ 7, 9.) The deposition of Plaintiff has yet to be taken, and Moving Defendant will have approximately three months to file a motion for summary judgment without the time to investigate Plaintiff’s claims. (Id., ¶10, 11.)

Attached to Moving Defendant’s motion was a signed stipulation to continue trial to January 2025. (Id., ¶ 12; Exhibit A.) There have been no continuances. (Id., ¶ 13.)

No opposition has been filed.

The Court finds that Moving Defendant has made a showing of good cause to continue the trial date to have adequate time to conduct discovery and prepare for trial.

Therefore, Moving Defendant’s Motion to Continue is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Motion to Continue is GRANTED.

The trial date is continued to mid January 2025.  Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.