Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV31245, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV31245    Hearing Date: April 30, 2025    Dept: 29

Godinez v. Martinez
23STCV31245
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted in part.

Background

On December 21, 2023, Esteban Torres Godinez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Ezequiel Martinez (“Martinez”), LA Metro, Access Services (“Access”), County of Los Angeles (subsequently dismissed), City of Los Angles (subsequently dismissed), and Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident on August 1, 2023, on Washington Boulevard just east of Alameda Street in Los Angeles.

On February 26, 2024, Martinez and Access filed an answer.

On March 14, 2024, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) (erroneously sued as LA Metro) filed an answer.

On March 15, 2024, Metro filed a cross-complaint against Access, Martinez, and Roes 1 through 10.

On April 24, 2024, Martinez and Access filed an answer to Metro’s cross-complaint.

On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name California Transit, Inc. (“California Transit”) as Doe 1.

On June 20, 2024, California Transit filed an answer.

On March 28, 2025, Metro amended its cross-complaint to name California Transit as Roe 1.

California Transit filed an answer to Metro’s cross-complaint on April 24, 2025.

On April 8, 2025, Martinez, Access, and California Transit (collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 17, and Defendants filed a reply on April 23.

Trial is currently set for June 20, 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 move to continue the trial date, currently set for June 20, 2025.  Defendants make essentially three arguments in support of their motion.

First, Defendants state that in March 2025, during the deposition of Angelica Celeya, they discovered that a third-party witness saw Plaintiff run a red light, which was unknown to counsel as it was not mentioned in the traffic report. (Cheung Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) Defense counsel states that he did not have prior knowledge of the third-party witness and seeks additional time to identify and locate this witness. (Id. ¶¶ 10-14.)

Second, Defendants’ counsel has a family vacation scheduled from June 23 through June 29.  (Id., ¶ 15.)

Third, Plaintiff and Defendants have agreed to mediate with Troy Roe, Esq., but Mr. Roe does not have available mediation dates prior to September 2025.  (Id., ¶ 16.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that Defendants have had ample opportunity to identify and depose the witness to the accident, and that if the identification has not already happened, it is unlikely to happen in the future. (Contreras Decl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that she is willing to trail the trial two weeks to accommodate defense counsel’s summer vacation but is not willing to continue the trial 120 days for mediaiton. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.)

The Court has considered the evidence and argument presented by both sides.  Based on the recent disclosure of an unknown potential witness to the accident, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial for approximately 60 days.  Good cause has not been shown for the requested continuance of 120 days.

The motion is granted in part.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS IN PART the motion to continue trial filed by Defendants Access Services, California Transit, Inc., and Ezequiel Martinez.

The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or after August 19, 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.