ANISA HAMDAN VS WALTER DE LA TORRE ET AL

Motion for an Order Continuing Trial and Related Dates

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 12, 2017, Plaintiff Willie C. Bocatija (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Fadee Helou and Limited One Enterprises, Inc. for premises liability arising out of a slip and fall incident that occurred on September 30, 2015.

On February 5, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application to continue trial and all related dates.  The trial was continued from February 26, 2019 to August 29, 2019.  All discovery and motion cut-ff dates were to be based on the new trial date.

On August 29, 2019, pursuant to the parties’ joint stipulation, the Court ordered the trial continued from September 12, 2019 to December 6, 2019.

On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to continue trial.

Trial is set for December 6, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests that the Court issues an order continuing the trial date and all other related dates.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o 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.”  Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[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.”

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough 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.”  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings.  In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.  (Code Civ. Proc. ; 2024.050.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to continue the trial date.  Plaintiff argues there is good cause to continue the trial because the deposition of Plaintiff and Defendants have not been taken and expert designations have not been served. According to Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff’s deposition was scheduled for October 1, 2019 and a mediation is scheduled for November 1, 2019.  (Marrache Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)  Plaintiff’s counsel is also engaged in trials and master and individual immigration hearings of approximately ten matters out of the Los Angeles Immigration Court from September to December 2019.  (Id., ¶¶ 7-9.) Id., ¶ 3, Ex. A.)

The Court finds good cause to continue the trial and other related dates.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders trial continued from December 6, 2019 to April 2, 2020 22, 2019 to March 19, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 4A.  Discovery cut-off (including expert witness exchange) and motion cut-off dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.