Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 20STCV12827, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV12827    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On April 1, 2020, Plaintiff Scott Eric Rosenstiel filed this action against Defendant Randall Alan Alford.  At the June 25, 2021 case management conference, counsel for Plaintiff stated that Defendant had not yet been served.  The Court scheduled the Final Status Conference for October 3, 2022, and the jury trial for October 17, 2022.

On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service reflecting service made on Defendant on April 26, 2022.  Defendant filed an answer on June 9, 2022.

On July 18, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to continue trial date.  Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

A court may grant a continuance of trial upon a showing of good cause.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)  Good cause includes the addition of a new party if the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or if 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.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(5).)  The court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

Defendant contends there is good cause to continue trial and all pretrial deadlines because Plaintiff delayed in serving Defendant, Defendant is a new party, trial was scheduled before Defendant was served, no prior continuances have been granted to Defendant, Defendant’s counsel has been diligent in the face of conflicting obligations and illness, and to deny Defendant an effective opportunity to prepare for trial would be unfair and prejudicial.  (Motion at p. 6.)

Plaintiff did not serve Defendant until April 26, 2022, over two years after filing this action.  Defendant’s counsel was unavailable after filing the answer on June 9, 2022 through June 27, 2022 because she was involved in a multi-party arbitration.  (Hughes Decl. ¶ 5.)  She thereafter contracted COVID-19, rendering her unable to work through July 7, 2022.  (Ibid.)  On July 13 and 14, 2022, Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel about a continuance, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused.  (Id. at ¶ 8.)  Defendant promptly filed this motion on July 18, 2022.  Defendant requests a one-year continuance.  (Motion at p. 6.)  Defendant will be prejudiced by the current trial date because he has not yet had an opportunity to propound discovery, and it is too late to file a motion for summary judgment.  (See Hughes Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; Motion at p. 6.)  There are no other parties in this action, and no prejudice will result from granting this motion.  The Court therefore finds good cause to continue the trial and all related dates.

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED.  The Final Status Conference scheduled for 10/03/2022 at 8:30 AM is advanced to this date and continued to _____.  The Jury Trial scheduled for 10/17/2022 at 10:00 AM is advanced to this date and continued to _____.  All discovery and other pretrial deadlines are based on the new trial date.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 9th day of August 2022