ARTURO SANTANA VS DAVID ORTEGA, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17NWLC12492    Hearing Date: November 05, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

(CRC 3.1332)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Arturo Santana’s Motion to Continue Trial Date is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On December 20, 2017, Plaintiff Arturo Santana (“Plaintiff”) filed this breach-of-contract action against Defendants David Ortega and Diane Ortega (collectively, “Defendants”). On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial Date (the “Motion”).

II. Legal Standard

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.  All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.”  (CRC 3.1332(a).) “A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations.  The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”  (Id. 3.1332(b).)

“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.” (Id. 3.1332(c).)

“[T]he court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include:

(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.”

(Id. 3.1332(d).)

III. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to continue the trial date because his counsel has another hearing in Oakland on a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern of California on the same day as the trial scheduled on December 11, 2019 in this Department. Defendants have not opposed the Motion. The Court discerns no prejudice to Defendants by continuing the trial date. “Although continuances of trials are disfavored,” the Court finds that a continuance is appropriate this time.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For good cause shown, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED.

The trial date of December 11, 2019 is ADVANCED to today’s date and CONTINUED to FEB. 11, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 94. All discovery dates to follow the new trial date.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.