ARMANDO LOPEZ VS GLOCKSTORE ET AL

Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates

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

BACKGROUND

On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff Armando Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Glockstore, Lenny Magills, Lenny Magills dba Glockstore, LMP/Mail Order Video, LMP/Mail Order Video dba Glockstore, San Diego Sewing Company, and San Diego Sewing Company dba Glockstore.  Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that strict product liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties for a gun that negligently discharged and harmed Plaintiff on November 5, 2016.

On July 13, 2018, the Court dismissed Defendants Lenny Magills, San Diego Sewing Company, and San Diego Sewing Company dba Glockstore without prejudice.

On June 1, 2020, Defendant LMP/Mail Order Video, Inc. dba Glockstore filed a motion to continue trial pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

Trial is set for July 8, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant LMP/Mail Order Video, Inc. dba Glockstore (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court to vacate trial and set a trial setting conference.

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

Moving Defendant argues there is good cause to vacate trial and set a trial setting conference because there is outstanding ordinary and expert discovery.  (Motion, pp. 6:17-7:3.)

The Court finds there is good cause to continue trial, but not good cause to vacate trial entirely.  Moving Defendant has not established why trial should not simply be continued.  Trial needs to be set in order to continue the progress of this action. 

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Court orders trial shall be continued to January 14, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.  The Court also orders the final status conference date shall be continued to January 5, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.  Both hearings are to be held in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.  All discovery cut-off dates shall relate to the January 14, 2020 trial date.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.