Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV26344, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV26344    Hearing Date: February 13, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Lidia Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on October 27, 2023 against Defendant Custom Foods LLC (“Defendant”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) age discrimination, (2) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy, and

(3) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

Trial in this matter is currently set for March 26, 2025.

Defendant now moves for an order “to continue the March 26, 2025 trial date and all related discovery and motion dates to October 6, 2025, or a date thereafter convenient for [the] Court.” Plaintiff opposes.

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).)  

Defendant asserts that good cause exists for continuing the trial date here.

Defendant submits the declaration of its counsel, Philip Allingham, who states that
“[o]n or about December 31, 2024, Mr. Vincent Green, lead trial counsel and attorney of record for Defendants in this case, and the Managing Partner of the firm’s Los Angeles office, retired. While Mr. Green’s retirement was anticipated, this case was initially slated to be assigned to a different attorney at the firm who subsequently also departed, an unanticipated change.” (Allingham Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant notes that circumstances that may indicate good cause for a continuance include, inter alia, “[t]he unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c)(3).)

Mr. Allingham states that “[o]n…or about, December 27, 2024, I assumed the role of lead trial counsel for the present case…Relevant to my ability prepare [sic] and engage in the present case, I am in trial for the two weeks immediately preceding the current case’s trial date, as follows: a. Arbitration: March 10-14, 2025. b. Jury Trial: March 17-21, 2025.” (Allingham Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Mr. Allingham asserts that “[i]f the case is not continued, [he] will not be able to adequately prepare for trial in the present case.” (Allingham Decl., ¶ 6.)

In the opposition, Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant fails to make a showing that good cause exists for a trial continuance.” (Opp’n at p. 3:6-7.)

On February 7, 2024, a Case Management Conference was held in this matter, and trial was scheduled for March 26, 2025. (See February 7, 2024 Minute Order.) Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant and their counsel had notice of the trial date as early as February 7, 2024…It follows that Defendant had adequate notice of the trial date and had almost a full year to account for any conflicts with the trial date.” (Opp’n at p. 3:16-19.) But as discussed, on December 31, 2024, months after the February 7, 2024 Case Management Conference, “lead trial counsel and attorney of record for Defendant[] in this case [Mr. Vincent Green]…retired.” (Allingham Decl., ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff also asserts that “per Defendant’s own admission, Defendant’s counsel is in fact available for the first day of trial, as Mr. Allingham, Esq. does not have a conflict for the anticipated first day of trial.” (Opp’n at p 3:20-21.) But as set forth above, Mr. Allingham states that he will “not be able to adequately prepare for trial” if the case is not continued, not that he would be unavailable on the first day of trial. (Allingham Decl., ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff also argues that “[a]t no point in time during the course of this matter has Mr. Green, Esq. served as lead counsel. Rather, Daniel Barragan, Esq…has been the primary attorney litigating the case.” (Opp’n at p. 3:25-27.) Plaintiff asserts that “[n]owhere in Defendant’s moving papers or supporting documents does Defendant state that Mr. Barragan, Esq. is unavailable for the current trial date.” (Opp’n at p. 4:3-4.) However, Defendant argues that “[g]iven that Mr. Barragan does not have experience preparing or conducting a trial, change in the handling attorney from Mr. Green to Mr. Allingham is the functional equivalent of substitution of trial counsel.” (Mot. at p. 4:8-10.) Mr. Barragan states in his supporting declaration that he has “not yet experienced preparing or conducting a trial.” (Barragan Decl., ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff also asserts in the opposition that “[b]y Defendant’s own admission, Mr. Green, Esq.’s retirement was ‘anticipated.’…It follows that the reason for the requested trial continuance, namely Mr. Green, Esq.’s retirement, was foreseeable. In fact, Mr. Allingham, Esq. was assigned to the case on December 27, 2024, prior to Mr. Green, Esq.’s official retirement on December 31, 2024. It follows that Defendant knew or should have known that Mr. Green, Esq. was retiring well in advance of December 31, 2024. If they had not, they would not have assigned Mr. Allingham, Esq. to the case prior to Mr. Green, Esq.’s date of retirement.” (Opp’n at p. 4:11-17 [emphasis omitted].) But Plaintiff does not provide any evidence showing that Defendant purportedly “knew or should have known that Mr. Green, Esq. was retiring well in advance of December 31, 2024.” (Opp’n at p. 4:15-16.) As discussed, circumstances that may indicate good cause for a continuance include, inter alia, “[t]he unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c)(3).)

Lastly, Plaintiff asserts that she “has diligently prepared for trial and adhered to the trial-related deadlines based on the March 26, 2025 trial date. It follows that to allow Defendant to continue the trial date by seven months to October 2025, as requested by Defendant, would be prejudicial to Plaintiff.” (Opp’n at p. 5:1-4 [emphasis omitted].) But Plaintiff does not appear to articulate why it would be purportedly prejudicial to Plaintiff if the trial date is continued. In addition, Plaintiff does not appear to provide evidence to support the assertion that she has “diligently prepared for trial and adhered to the trial-related deadlines based on the March 26, 2025 trial date.” (Opp’n at p. 5:1-2.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause for a trial continuance.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to continue trial date 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 ordered to give notice of this ruling.  

DATED:  February 13, 2025                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court