Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV04291, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04291    Hearing Date: April 29, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On February 3, 2021, Fatima Adauta and Maria Serafin (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against David Redlus and Deanna Redlus (collectively "Defendants”) filed a negligence cause of action arising out of an automobile accident occurring on February 22, 2019.

On January 11, 2023, default was entered against Defendants. Defendants filed their answer on March 17, 2023. On April 24, 2023, a stipulation was filed setting aside the default against Defendants.

On April 4, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to continue trial. Defendants filed a supplemental declaration in support of their motion on April 23.  No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(8) provides that the court has the power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. “The power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) “A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances.” (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.) 

Each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits according to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c). The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances of 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: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) 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.” 

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c).) 

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 sets forth a list of non-exhaustive factors to be analyzed when determining whether good cause for a trial continuance is present. A court considers factors such as: 

“(1) The proximity of the trial date; 

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay 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 or application for a continuance; 

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; 

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; 

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and 

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.” 

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(d).)

Discussion

Defendants contend good cause exists for a continuance as Defendants have not been able to take Plaintiffs’ depositions; independent medical examinations of Plaintiffs have yet to be conducted as well. (Messina Decl., ¶ 7 (p. 11.); see also supp. Messina Decl., ¶ 6.) Defendants also contend that Plaintiff has been less than fully cooperative in moving forward with discovery.  Defendants seek a continuance of trial to allow them to conduct and complete discovery as well as file motions to compel. (Motion, 6:22-27; Messina Decl., ¶¶ 4-9; see also supp. Messina Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.)

No opposition has been filed to this motion.

The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden showing good cause for a continuance based on the necessary discovery yet to be conducted and discovery motions to be heard on May 30, 2024 and June 17, 2024.

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

The trial date is continued for approximately six months.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.