Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV12927, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12927    Hearing Date: September 18, 2024    Dept: 29

Sanchez v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
23STCV12927
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial and for Sanctions

Tentative

The motion to continue trial is granted.

The request for sanctions is denied without prejudice.

Background

On June 6, 2023, Gloria Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Costco Wholesale Corporation, Deborah Cosca (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 30 for premises liability and negligence arising out of a slip and fall occurring on June 11, 2021.

On November 8 and 17, 2023, each of the Defendants filed an answer.

On August 22, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to continue trial. Defendants also seek sanctions against Plaintiff for misuse of the discovery process.

No opposition has been filed.

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

Defendants have shown good cause for a continuance of the trial date.  Defendants have been unable to complete even the most basic of discovery – the deposition of Plaintiff – despite months of effort.  In April, Defendants first noticed the deposition of Plaintiff for May 21, 2024.  (Duenas Decl., ¶ 3.) After much back and forth, and reasonable diligence by Defendants, it was not until August 2 that Plaintiff finally proposed deposition dates for Plaintiff – and those dates were in October 2024, approximately six weeks before trial. (Id., ¶ 15.)

Defendants also request monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 for the difficulties they have encountered in scheduling Plaintiff’s deposition.  The Court notes that Defendants have filed a separate motion, set for hearing on September 24, in which Defendants seek an order compelling the deposition of Plaintiff and also the same sanctions. 

There is no need for two hearings on the same request for sanctions based on the same conduct.  As the allegedly sanctionable conduct relates to the scheduling of Plaintiff’s deposition, and there is a motion on calendar for next week that directly relates to Plaintiff’s deposition, the Court denies the request for sanctions in this motion, without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

The Court ORDERS that the trial is continued for approximately 90 days.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

The Court DENIES without prejudice Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.