Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV17999, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17999    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On May 13, 2021, Weber Enterprise Trucking Corporation (“Weber”) filed this action against Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association (“Forest Lawn”) and others.

On October 21, 2022, Forest Lawn filed a first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”) against Weber and Shane Josef Weber alleging (1) breach of contract; (2) nuisance; (3) trespass; (4) fraudulent concealment; (5) implied equitable indemnity; (6) declaratory relief (termination of Soil Agreement); and (7) declaratory relief (Weber subcontractor claims).

On October 26, 2022, Weber filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleging (1) breach of contract; (2) intentional misrepresentation; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) anticipatory breach of contract; and (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On February 8, 2024, Weber filed the instant motion to continue trial and related dates from June 3, 2024 to 120 days or any date thereafter. Forest Lawn opposes.

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (CRC rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Ibid.)  

Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (2) the unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (3) the unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (4) the substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice, (5) 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, (6) a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts, or (7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (Ibid.)

In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider all the facts and circumstances relevant to the determination.  Courts may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:  (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial. (See generally, CRC, rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  

Additionally, factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the proximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (CRC, rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

A.        Weber Has Not Shown Good Cause For A Trial Continuance

Trial is currently set for June 3, 2024. Weber argues good cause exists to continue the trial date because new counsel substituted in for Weber on January 22, 2024 and needs adequate time to prepare, get caught up to speed, and be ready for trial including review of hundreds of discovery responses, numerous depositions, and over approximately 10,000 pages in documents. (Vahdat Decl., ¶¶3-5.) Further, Forest Lawn's Cross-Complaint allegations are a significant aspect of this trial and despite prior counsel's efforts, a significant amount of discovery is still needed in such a short window of time with the current trial date. (Id. at ¶6.) Further investigation is needed to evaluate claims regarding imported soil materials, the allegation that asbestos was present on the site, alleged damages to a habitat area, and alleged costs to remediate.

In opposition, Forest Lawn argues that the current trial date provides enough time for new counsel to get up to speed, new counsel knew about the trial date when taking the case, and prior counsel also used this as a basis for the prior trial continuance in September 2023. Forest Lawn also argues that Weber claims to know specific additional discovery that is supposedly needed, but admits to a substantial amount of discovery already, i.e., “hundreds of discovery responses, numerous depositions, and over approximately 10,000 pages in documents.” Forest Lawn contends that Weber’s repeated substitution of new counsel should not be used as a means to prejudice Forest Lawn and continue to delay trial in this case that has been pending since May 2021.

In reply, Weber points to specific discovery it contends must take place prior to trial to evaluate Forest Lawn’s purported economic loss including depositions of numerous third parties involved in ongoing off-hauls that are taking place to allegedly mitigate Forest Lawn's damages, Forest Lawn’s PMK which will take multiple days, additional Forest Lawn employees and personnel, and at least seven to eight expert depositions between Forest Lawn and Weber's experts which could take anywhere from ten to fifteen full days of deposition. Weber also anticipates that it will need to issue additional subpoenas to obtain further information on Forest Lawn's claims based on the information obtained at Forest Lawn's PMK deposition. Weber estimates this investigative process will take several months.

The Court does not find that Weber has shown good cause for a trial continuance at this time. Trial is still three months away. New counsel was aware or should have been aware of the trial date when taking the case. Three months is sufficient time for counsel to get up to speed with the case, and Weber has not shown that any specific discovery necessitates a trial continuance. Discovery has not closed, and the depositions Weber indicates have yet to take place may be taken within these months prior to trial. As Weber admits, the investigative process will take several months. This finding does not preclude Weber from making another motion closer to the trial date addressing any specific outstanding discovery that has yet to be completed. 

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is DENIED.

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.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

                Dated this 5th day of March 2024