Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV17470, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17470    Hearing Date: April 1, 2025    Dept: 29

Griffiths v. Beetle House NYC, LLC
23STCV17470
Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted in part.

Background

On July 25, 2023, Shanadore Griffiths (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Beetle House NYC, LLC; Beetle House LLC; 7080 Hollywood, LLC (“7080 Hollywood”); Zach Neil; Brian Link; and Does 1 through 20 for general negligence and premises liability arising out of a slip and fall on October 22, 2022.

On filing, the Court set a trial date of January 21, 2025.

On March 11, 2024, 7080 Hollywood filed an answer and a cross-complaint against NBK Branded Entertainment, Inc. dba Beetle House (“NBK”).

On April 24, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name NBK as Doe 1.

Also on April 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss Brian Link.

On June 3, 2024, 7080 Hollywood filed a request to dismiss its cross-complaint.

On June 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss Zach Neil.

On June 20, 2024, NBK filed an answer to the complaint.

In August 2024, the Court continued the trial date, on the stipulation of the parties, to July 8, 2025.

On February 28, 2025, NBK and 7080 Hollywood (collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 18, and Defendants filed a reply on March 24.

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 request a trial continuance as more time is needed to complete discovery, and to accommodate trial counsel’s maternity leave.

Defendants contend Plaintiff has identified 32 medical treaters, and Plaintiff is continuing treatment, with plans to undergo surgery. (Real Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10.) Defendants have issued subpoenas to the 32 medical providers and are still awaiting records. (Id. ¶ 14.) Defendants still plan on having Plaintiff undergo three independent medical examinations with a neuropsychologist, orthopedist, and neurologist, as well as take the depositions of Plaintiff and her partner. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 13.)

Defense trial counsel Courtney Serrato is set to take maternity leave in May/June 2025, and would be unavailable for the July 8, 2025 trial date. (Id. ¶ 15.)

Defendants request a continuance to January 21, 2026, roughly six months.

Plaintiff opposes the motion based on Defendants’ lack of diligence. Plaintiff argues that she produced responses to written discovery in September 2024, provided medical authorizations in February 2025, and that her and her spouse’s depositions were completed on Marech 17 and 18, 2025. (Opposition, 2:11-13.) Further, Plaintiff is set to appear for an independent medical examination on April 7, 2025. (Id., 2:13-15.) Plaintiff lastly argues that as defense counsel’s firm is not a solo practice, trial counsel’s maternity leave does not constitute good cause.

The Court finds that there is good cause for a trial continuance, based in significant part on counsel’s maternity leave and also the demonstrated need to complete some additional discovery.  On this record, the Court finds that good cause has been shown for a continuance of approximately 120 days.

The motion is granted in part.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s motion to continue trial.

The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or after November 10, 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all discovery deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.