Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

CLAUDIA V. GONZALEZ RUIZ, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. NEOMIE F. HERNANDEZ, et al. Defendants.	Case No.:	21STCV04401
	Hearing Date:	January 24, 2023
	Hearing Time:	10:00 a.m.
	[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

Background

Plaintiffs Claudia V. Gonzalez Ruiz, Carolina G. Ruiz, and Diana Gonzalez Ruiz (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on February 3, 2021, against Defendant Neomie F. Hernandez, an individual, and dba Exclusive Tax Service.

On March 26, 2021, Neomie F. Hernandez dba Exclusive Tax Service filed a Cross-Complaint against Claudia V. Gonzalez Ruiz, an individual, and dba United Income Tax Service,

Carolina G. Ruiz, and Diana Gonzalez Ruiz.

The trial date in this action is currently set for March 8, 2023.

Neomie F. Hernandez (“Hernandez”) now moves to continue the trial date to June 28, 2023, or another date thereafter which is convenient to the Court. Plaintiffs oppose.

Discussion

“The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (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).)

Hernandez asserts that the grounds for a continuance of the trial date is that significant issues related to discovery have arisen between the parties that cannot be sufficiently resolved before trial. Specifically, Hernandez contends that the parties have not had sufficient time to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other discovery. (Willoughby Decl., ¶ 6.) Hernandez also notes that there are hearings reserved for discovery motions on dates after the current March 8, 2023 trial date, including a motion filed by Claudia V. Gonzalez Ruiz that is set for August 31, 2023.

Hernandez also asserts that on October 5, 2022, Plaintiffs took the deposition of Hernandez, but due to personal issues, counsel for Plaintiffs was forced to cut the deposition short. (Willoughby Decl., ¶ 7.) The continued deposition of Hernandez was set to take place on December 12, 2022, but counsel for Hernandez had a conflict. (Willoughby Decl., ¶¶ 8-9.) Hernandez also indicates that rescheduling her deposition has proven difficult as she recently gave birth and must tend to her newborn child. (Willoughby Decl., ¶ 10.)

In the opposition, Plaintiffs assert that no good cause exists to support a trial continuance. They note that this action has been pending for nearly two years since it was filed on February 3, 2021. Plaintiffs also assert that the proximity to trial justifies denying the trial continuance. Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d)(1), “[i]n ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: (1) The proximity of the trial date…”

Plaintiffs also assert that Hernandez has engaged in discovery abuse, which factors against granting a trial continuance. Plaintiffs assert that Hernandez failed to appear for deposition. (Singh Decl., ¶ 2.) In addition, Plaintiffs note that on January 28, 2022, the Court issued an order granting discovery motions filed by Plaintiffs. Per the January 28, 2022, Order, Hernandez was ordered to serve verified responses without objections to specified discovery requests and to pay sanctions.

Plaintiffs also assert that Hernandez has never noticed or requested any depositions. (Singh Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs indicate that Hernandez already propounded written discovery on all Plaintiffs on August 1, 2021, to which Plaintiffs responded, and that Hernandez then propounded a second set of written discovery on Carolina G. Ruiz on March 9, 2022, to which she responded. (Singh Decl., ¶ 3.) However, Plaintiffs also note that Hernandez filed motions to compel as to the second set of written discovery. (Singh Decl., ¶ 4.)

Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that he will be prejudiced by a continuance because he had to clear scheduling conflicts in late February 2023 and early March 2023 by moving them to later this year. (Singh Decl., ¶ 7.)

The Court notes that Hernandez filed an untimely reply in support of the motion, which asserts, inter alia, that if Plaintiffs are “truly ready for trial, then the August 31, 2023 motion represents a clear misuse of the discovery process.” (Reply at p. 3:14-15.) However, Hernandez fails to address many of the arguments made by Plaintiffs in their opposition. In any event, in light of Hernandez’s recent birth, the Court finds that Hernandez has demonstrated good cause for a short trial continuance. Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subdivision (c)(2), circumstances that may indicate good cause for a continuance include “[t]he unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstance.”

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Hernandez’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.

Hernandez is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED: January 24, 2023 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court