Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV01968, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01968    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs James B. Leovy, as Trustee of the Norma Leovy Living Trust “DTD” April 14, 1992, as amended and restated, and James Leovy, an individual (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on January 18, 2022 against Defendant Golden Gun Capital, LLC (“Golden Gun Capital”). Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on March 7, 2022, alleging causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) negligent trespass and encroachment, (3) intentional trespass and encroachment, and (4) private nuisance.

 On May 4, 2022, Golden Gun Capital filed a Cross-Complaint against Moes 1 to 100, asserting causes of action for (1) indemnity, (2) contribution, and (3) declaratory relief.

The trial date in this action is currently set for June 28, 2023.     

Plaintiffs and Golden Gun Capital (jointly referred to herein as the “Parties”) now move to continue the trial date of June 28, 2023. No opposition to the motion was filed.

            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, subd. (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, subd. (d).)

In support of the motion, the Parties submit the Declaration of Nora R. Boardman, counsel for Golden Gun Capital. Ms. Boardman states that “[o]n several occasions following the setting of the trial date, plaintiff’s counsel, Bernard R. Schwam, and I discussed that more time was needed to prepare for trial but that we first wanted to make our best efforts in attempting resolution thru [sic] private mediation. We engaged in numerous conversations, to discuss the choice of the right mediator for this case, and we jointly decided on using a retired judge, in this case, Gerald Rosenberg, as a good fit for this case.” (Boardman Decl., ¶ 5.) The Parties indicate in the motion that the case is set for Mediation on August 11, 2023.

The Parties indicate that “[b]oth plaintiff and defendant agree that a short continuance is necessary to spend the time needed to mediate this case, rather than spend the time preparing for trial.” (Mot. at p. 4:5-6.) In support of this statement, the Parties cite to a “Stipulation to Continue Trial and Related Dates and [Proposed] Order,” which is attached as Exhibit A to the motion.

The Court notes that pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d), “[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,” and these may include, “[w]hether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (d)(10).)

Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court finds that the Parties have demonstrated good cause for a trial continuance.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Parties’ motion is granted.

The Court continues the final status conference to September 15, 2023, at 2 p.m., in Dept. 50 and trial to September 20, 2023 at 9:30 a.m., in Dept. 50. The trial readiness and exhibit binders must be lodged in Dept. 50 by 4 p.m. on September 13, 2023.

All discovery deadlines are continued based on the new trial date.

The Parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  May 15, 2023                                                        

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court