Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV16180, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV16180 Hearing Date: January 5, 2023 Dept: 31
MOTION TO
CONTINUE TRIAL DATE IS GRANTED
Background
On April 29, 2021, Plaintiff Carlos Chavez filed a Complaint against Defendants Schlumberger Technology Corporation; Timothy Ramey; and Does 1 to 100 for:
1) INTERFERENCE
WITH RIGHT TO MEDICAL LEAVE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT (GOV’T. CODE
§ 12945.2(t))
2) RETALIATION
FOR TAKING MEDICAL LEAVE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT (GOV’T. CODE
§12945.2(t));
3) RETALIATION
FOR TAKING MEDICAL LEAVE (GOV’T. CODE §12940(h));
4) DISCRIMINATION
(GOV’T CODE §12940(a));
5) FAILURE
TO ACCOMMODATE (GOV’T. CODE § 12940(m));
6) FAILURE
TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS (GOV’T. CODE § 12940(n));
7) HARASSMENT
(GOV’T. CODE §§ 12940(j));
8) FAILURE
TO PREVENT HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND RETALITION (GOV’T. CODE §§ 12940(k));
AND
9) WRONGFUL DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY.
On August 09, 2022, this Court granted the parties stipulation to continue the trial date to April 24, 2023 at 10:00 am.
On December 09, 2022, Defendants moved to continue the trial date.
Plaintiff filed opposing papers on December 21, 2022.
A reply was filed on December
28, 2022.
Legal Standard
“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.” (Cal. Rules of Court (CRC) 3.1332(a).) “Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.¿The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”¿(CRC 3.1332(c).) CRC rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states what circumstance may indicate good cause and subdivision (d) states what other factors are considered in granting the continuance.¿¿¿¿ ¿
The party seeking a
continuance of the date set for trial, “must make the request for a continuance
by a noticed motion or an ex parte application . . .with supporting
declarations … [and] as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the
continuance is discovered.” (CRC 3.1332(b).)¿¿
Discussion
On August 09, 2022, this Court granted the parties stipulation to continue the trial date to April 24, 2023 at 10:00 am. Defendants now move to continue the trial on the basis that Defendants have been deprived of the opportunity to dispose of some or all of Plaintiff’s claims via summary judgment and have been unable to take Plaintiff’s deposition.
Defendants assert that since November 18, 2021, they have requested a date for either December 2021 or January 2022 for the taking of Plaintiff’s deposition. (Roberts Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Plaintiff failed to respond. On April 25, 2022, Defendants proposed taking Plaintiff’s deposition in May 2022, but Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he was unavailable on the requested dates. (Roberts Decl. ¶ 4.) Upon stipulation from the parties, the trial was continued. (Roberts Decl. ¶ 5.)
In September 2022, Defendants again requested dates for Plaintiff’s deposition but received no response. (Roberts Decl. ¶ 6.) The deposition was set to take place on December 7, 2022. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently informed Defendants that the date did not work. (Id., Ex. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel canceled the deposition and stated that he did not have sufficient time to prepare. (Id. ¶ 7.) No other dates were provided. (Id. ¶ 8.) Defendants assert that minutes before filing this Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel offered the date of December 20th, but Defense counsel was unavailable.
Defendants obtained a hearing date for the motion for summary judgment for October 17, 2022, but due to the continuance and the inability to take Plaintiff’s deposition, Defendants did not file a motion by the statutory deadline for the hearing which was August 1, 2022.
Attempts to reserve a new hearing date failed to conform to the scheduling requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first available hearing date for the motion for summary judgment was April 17, 2023, which would not be in compliance with the 30-day limit set by the Code of Civil Procedure section 473(c)(3). Defendants tried to obtain a stipulation to continue the trial date, but Plaintiff refused. (Roberts Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. C.)
Accordingly, Defendants assert good cause exists for continuing the trial date.
Defendants have been unable to obtain essential testimony because they have been unable to take Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendants would also be unable to notice a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition prior to the trial date, let alone a motion for summary judgment. Defendants further assert that they have been diligent in trying to take Plaintiff’s deposition, however, Plaintiff has not been forthcoming with dates.
Plaintiff asserts that the fault for not reserving an earlier date for a motion for summary judgment lies with the Defendants and that Defendants failed to request a continuance of the discovery cut-off dates, much less other trial-related deadlines. Therefore, to allow Defendants time to have their summary judgment motion heard while keeping all trial-related deadlines would severely prejudice Plaintiff. Plaintiff requests that if the motion is granted, the trial date be continued to July 31, 2022, and that all trial-related dates, including the discovery cutoff, be continued to relate to the new trial date. Defendants consent to this request.
The Court finds that the Defendants’ inability to take Plaintiff’s deposition in preparation for their motion for summary judgment constitutes good cause to continue the trial. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)
Absent the express consent of the parties, the Court does not have the authority to shorten the minimum notice period for summary judgment hearings. (See Urshan v. Musicians' Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 767-768.) Defendants also have a statutory right to have their motion for summary judgment heard on the merits before trial. (See Polibrid Coatings, Inc. v. Superior Court of Orange County (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 920, 923 (“fast track” rules directing courts to dispose of general civil cases within two years “must give way to the statutory right to bring a summary judgment motion.”]; see also Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 526, 529.)
The Court finds that good cause exists to continue the trial date. The Motion is GRANTED.
Conclusion
Defendant’s Motion to Continue the Trial Date is GRANTED.
The Trial is continued from April 24, 2023 to June 26, 2023. All pre-trial deadlines shall be based on the new trial date.
The Final Status Conference is continued from April 12, 2023 to June 15, 2023.
The Post Mediation Status Conference Re: MSC is continued
from February 15, 2023 to June 1, 2023.
Moving party to give notice.