Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: BC671792, Date: 2024-06-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC671792 Hearing Date: June 18, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Continue
Trial filed by Plaintiff Jehan Zeb Mir.
Tentative
The motion is denied.
Background
This is a personal injury action
arising out of a motor vehicle collision on January 7, 2015. The case has a long and complicated procedural
history, which the Court will not attempt to summarize here.
Plaintiff Jehan Zeb Mir (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint on August 10, 2017.
Plaintiff had previously been determined to be a vexatious litigation,
and his complaint was dismissed in October 2017 under Code of Civil Procedure
section 391.7. The Court of Appeal
reversed and issued its remittitur on October 9, 2020.
On October 28, 2020, the Court set a
trial date of May 10, 2021. In March
2021, on the stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial date to
July 18, 2022. After the Court rejected the
parties’ stipulation to another continuance on procedural grounds, the Court
granted Defendants’ ex parte application in June 2022 and continued trial to
June 28, 2023. In May 2023, the Court
again rejected the parties’ stipulation to another continuance on procedural
grounds. On June 14, 2023, the Court granted
Defendants’ ex parte application and continued trial to April 29, 2024.
On February 9, 2024, the Court denied
Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a further continuance of the trial date.
On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed
this noticed motion to continue trial. On May 30, Defendants filed an
opposition. On June 10, Plaintiff filed a reply.
In the interim, the Court on April
15, 2024, continued the trial date to May 6, and on April 25, the Court continued
the trial date to June 18, 2024.
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
Plaintiff moves to
continue trial to December 2024 and to reopen discovery so that he may complete
discovery in this matter, including (but not limited to) through motions to
compel. (Mir Decl., ¶ 4.)
The Court has considered
all of the evidence in the record and the arguments of counsel. No good cause has been shown for a further
trial continuance. This case has been at
issue for more than three years. Trial
has already been continued five times – three times for approximately one year
each, and then two recent, shorter, interim continuances. Plaintiff has had plenty of time to conduct
discovery. Plaintiff’s absence of
diligence in conducting discovery, and bringing appropriate discovery motions
to the Court to the extent necessary, does not provide good cause for yet
another trial continuance.
Accordingly, the
motion is denied.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES Plaintiff
Jehan Zeb Mir’s motion to continue trial.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.