HAMED JAFARI VS NICHOLAS HERMAN ET AL

Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates

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

BACKGROUND

On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff Hamed Jafari (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Nicholas Herman and Rena Herman (“Defendants”).  The complaint alleges negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on October 7, 2016.

On January 6, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to continue trial pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

On January 27, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Defendants’ motion to February 4, 2020.

Trial is set for February 18, 2020.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

Defendant asks the Court to continue trial to July 6, 2020 and to relate the final status conference and all discovery cut of dates to relate to the July 6, 2020 trial date.

///

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

Defendants argue there is good cause to continue trial so Defendants may secure the availability for their experts.  (Motion, p. 4:9-4:10.)  Trial was continued once.  (Skinner Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  However, Defendants experts Lloyd V. Martin and Jennifer L. Polhemus stated they would not be able to attend trial.  (Skinner Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)  The parties have stipulated to the continuance.  (Skinner Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. D.)

The Court finds there is good cause to continue trial.  However, there is no argument made showing there is good cause to reopen discovery.  As such, discovery shall remain closed.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders trial shall be continued to July 6 2020 at 8:30 a.m.  The Court also orders the final status conference date shall be continued to June 22, 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 remain related to February 18, 2020.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.