Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV17575, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV17575 Hearing Date: April 3, 2025 Dept: 29
Gonzalez v. The
Chefs’ Warehouse, Inc.
23STCV17575
Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial
Tentative
The motion is granted in part.
Background
On July 26, 2023, Jonathan Gonzalez
(“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against The Chef’s Warehouse, Inc., Gerardo
Garibaygarcia, and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for motor
vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an automobile accident
on March 16, 2023.
On February 20, 2024, The Chef’s Warehouse,
Inc. filed an answer.
Defendant Garibaygarcia has not filed an
answer.
On
February 28, 2025, The Chef’s Warehouse, Inc. and Gerardo Garibay Garcia
(collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff
filed an opposition on March 3, and Defendants filed a reply on March 26.
When
the case was filed, the Court assigned a trial date of January 22, 2025. In December 2024, on the stipulation of the
parties, the Court continued the trial date to April 22, 2025.
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 seek a six-month continuance of
trial. Defendants’ counsel reports that
he has two other cases scheduled for trial on April 7 and 22, that additional
fact discovery is necessary, and that their experts are unavailable for trial. (Jacobs Decl., ¶¶ 4-7.) Defendants also seek to conduct a
neuropsychological examination of Plaintiff, but their proposed examiner is not
available until June 19. (Id., ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff opposes the requested six-month
continuance but does not oppose a shorter continuance.
The Court has reviewed the evidence and
argument submitted by each sides and finds that good cause has been shown for a
continuance of the trial, but good cause has not been shown for a six-month
continuance. The finding of good cause
is based primarily on the unavailability of trial counsel and Defendants’
experts. The reported need for more time
for fact discovery (including a medical examination) is not good cause,
however, as Defendant appeared in February 2024 and has had ample time to
complete discovery in this matter.
For good cause shown, the motion is granted
in part. Trial is continued for
approximately 60 days.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motion
to continue trial.
The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or
after June 23, 2025. The Final Status
Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.