Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV00599, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00599    Hearing Date: May 3, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.

Tentative

The motion is granted in part.

Background

On January 11, 2023, Bridget Christian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Does 1 through 100 for premises liability and general negligence arising from a trip and fall occurring on October 15, 2022, on a sidewalk running parallel to North Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles.  City filed its answer on February 16, 2023.

On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Blake Bartlett and Cara Bartlett as Does 51 and 52.  On June 27, 2023, Blake and Cara Bartlett filed their answers.

On April 9, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed a declaration of counsel in opposition later on April 9, 2024.

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

City’s counsel states he is unavailable for the current trial date due to a vacation scheduled for July 1 through July 16, 2024. (McGuire Decl., ¶ 2.) City also notes that there some discovery remains.

City requests a 90-day continuance.  City does not explain, however, why a two-week vacation necessitates (or is good cause for) a 90-day continuance.  In addition, with a short continuance, it appears that there will be sufficient time to complete the identified discovery.

Plaintiff does not oppose a brief continuance but opposes the request for 90 days.

Based on the evidence in the record, the arguments of both sides, and the consideration of the applicable factors set forth in the Rules of Court, the Court finds good cause for a 30-day continuance of the trial date.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS in part the motion to continue trial.

The Court advances and continues the trial date to approximately August 9, 2024.  Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.