Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV03224, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV03224 Hearing Date: August 24, 2022 Dept: 50
|
ARTURO CASTRO MENDOZA,
Plaintiff, vs. HASCO OIL CO., INC., et al. Defendants. |
Case No.: |
21STCV03224 |
|
Hearing Date: |
August 24, 2022 |
|
|
Hearing Time: |
10:00 a.m. |
|
|
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT
HASCO OIL CO., INC.’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL |
||
Background
Plaintiff Arturo Castro Mendoza
(“Plaintiff”) filed this action on January 27, 2021 against Defendant Hasco Oil
Co., Inc. (“Defendant”). The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was
filed on August 4, 2021, and asserts causes of action for (1)
failure to provide meal and rest breaks (Labor Code §§
226.7, 512), (2) failure to provide itemized wage and hour statements (Labor Code §§ 226, et seq.), (3) Private Attorney
General Act (Labor Code § 2699) and (4) Unfair Competition (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.)
The
trial date in this action is currently set for October 26, 2022.
Defendant now moves for an
Order continuing the trial, and trial-related dates, by at least three months. Plaintiff
filed a limited opposition to the motion.
Discussion
“
Defendant
contends the Court should grant the instant motion for at least five reasons.
First,
Defendant indicates that on June 27, 2022, the parties agreed to
proceed with a Mandatory
Settlement Conference (“MSC”) before the Hon. Zaven V.
Sinanian. (Reyes Decl., ¶ 11.) On July 27, 2022, the Court issued a minute
order which provides, inter alia, that “[t]he Court orders the parties
to participate in a Remote Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) before the
Honorable Zaven V. Sinanian on August 19, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.” Defendant argues
that without a trial date shortly after the MSC, the parties will be more
willing to engage in meaningful settlement negotiations that can ultimately
result in the informal disposition of this action.
Second, Defendant
indicates that its counsel’s office has a pre-scheduled, conflicting
arbitration hearing in a different matter that is scheduled to begin on October
24, 2022 and expected to last until at least October 28, 2022. (Reyes
Decl., ¶ 16.) Defendant’s counsel asserts that this is an unavoidable conflict with the October 26, 2022 trial
date in this matter. (Reyes Decl., ¶ 16.) Circumstances that may indicate good cause for a trial continuance
include “[t]he unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or
other excusable circumstances…” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c)(3).)
Third,
Defendant indicates the
parties agreed and stipulated to enter into a protective order, and that on
July 12, 2022, Defendant filed a Stipulation and Proposed Protective Order with
the Court. (Reyes Decl., ¶ 7.) Defendant indicates that a
Protective Order has not yet been issued by the Court. Defendant asserts that the
Court’s issuance of the Protective Order is a condition precedent to serving
further responses to written discovery and producing responsive documents in
this matter. In addition, Defendant asserts that both parties have outstanding
depositions of key witnesses. (Reyes Decl., ¶ 8.)
Fourth, Defendant asserts that
Plaintiff has not yet submitted, or attempted to submit, a trial plan for his
PAGA cause of action. (Reyes Decl., ¶ 9.) Defendant cites to Wesson v.
Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 746, 771, where the Court of Appeal noted that “if possible, the court should work with the
parties to render a PAGA claim manageable by adopting a feasible trial
plan or limiting the claim’s scope.”
Lastly, Defendant
asserts that the facts and circumstances in this case support a trial
continuance under
In the
opposition, Plaintiff indicates that he is not
opposed to the continuance based on counsel’s statement regarding unavailability due to a
scheduling conflict related to another matter. However, Plaintiff states that
he is opposed to any extension of the cutoff dates related to filing
dispositive motions. Plaintiff notes that the October 26, 2022 trial date in
this matter was set at a Case Management Conference held on September 20, 2021.
(See September 20, 2021 Minute Order.) Plaintiff asserts that “[t]he
notice of Plaintiff’s deposition was not served by the Defendant until June of
2022. Plaintiff should not be prejudiced having to potentially oppose a
dispositive motion due to the lack of diligence on the part of the Defendant.” (Opp’n
at p. 2:6-10.) Defendant counters that a denial of Defendant’s request
for a trial continuance would deprive Defendant of its right to be heard on
summary judgment, and would also prevent the Court from potentially narrowing
the issues for trial, thereby wasting judicial resources.
In light of Defendant’s counsel’s
unavailability on the October 26, 2022 trial date, as well as the fact that Defendant
submitted a stipulation and proposed protective order on July 12, 2022 that is
pending, the Court finds that
Defendant has demonstrated good cause for a trial continuance.
The
Court notes (1) the parties are informed at the CMC in each case that the Court
recommends sending a courtesy copy of any documents such as stipulations to Dept.
50, and (2) the Court of Appeals has made it clear that once a trial date has
been continued, the Court cannot prevent the filing and hearing of a timely summary judgment or
summary adjudication. The Court has
located the stipulation for a protective order in the docket and has printed
out a copy and signed it.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s
motion is granted.
The Court continues the
final status conference to ______________, at 10:00 a.m., in Dept. 50 and trial
to _____________, at 9:30 a.m., in Dept. 50.
All discovery deadlines
are continued based on the new trial date.
Defendant is ordered to
give notice of this ruling.
DATED:
________________________________
Hon. Teresa A.
Beaudet
Judge, Los
Angeles Superior Court