Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV39512, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39512    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Plaintiff Samuel D. Cienfuegos.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On December 20, 2022, Samuel D. Cienfuegos (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Donald G. Durham, and Does 1 through 50 for a negligence cause of action arising out of an automobile accident occurring on May 29, 2021. Defendant Donald G. Durham filed an answer on February 14, 2023.

On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff 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 18, 2024. (Stipulation re: Continuance of Trial, ¶ 2.) The parties have agreed on a mediator, but the mediator’s first availability is August 22, 2024, after the current trial date. (Winokur Decl., 7-8.) The parties have agreed to continue trial, a signed stipulation has been attached continuing trial date to January 22, 2025 and final status conference to January 8, 2025. (Id., 9-10; Exh. 1.)

The Court finds that Moving Defendants have met their burden showing good cause for a continuance.

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

The trial date is advanced and continued to approximately January 22, 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.