MARC SKIPWITH VS ALPINE INTERIORS CORPORATION, ET AT.,

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC128107    Hearing Date: October 05, 2020    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Marc Skipwith v. Alpine Interiors Corp., et al.

CASE NO.: SC128107

MOTION: Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial and All Pre-trial Dates

HEARING DATE: 10/5/2020

BACKGROUND

In September 2018, Plaintiff Marc Skipwith, (“Plaintiff”) filed a verified third amended complaint against Defendant Alpine Interior Corporation, Johannes Van Ierland, and Does 1 -10 for (1) involuntary dissolution of corporation, (2) open book account, and (3) fraud. The original trial date was set for October 13, 2020. On August 6, 2020, Defendants filed a motion seeking a continuance of the trial date and all associated pretrial dates to at least 90 days from the dates set. This motion is unopposed.

On August 12, 2020, the Court, on its own motion, vacated the Jury Trial scheduled for October 13, 2020 and set the matter for a trial setting conference.

LEGAL STANDARD

Granting or denying a continuance is within the Court’s discretion. (Schlothan v. Rusalem, (1953) 41 Cal.2d 414, 417.) Each request for a continuance is considered on its own merits. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) However, “there is no right to a continuance as a matter of law.” (Fisher v. Larsen, (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 627, 648.) The Court will only grant a continuance when the moving party has affirmatively established that good cause exists. (Ibid.)

The general discovery deadline is 30 days before the trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.) The expert witness discovery deadline is 15 days before the trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.030.)

ANALYSIS

Defendants argue that good cause exists to continue all pretrial dates. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include, “(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.” (CRC Rule 1332(c) (6) & (7).). Defendants request a continuance of at all associated pretrial dates to at least 90 days from the dates set.

All pretrial deadlines were computed based on the October 13, 2020 trial date. Defendants request a continuance to complete discovery. Defendants argue that they have been unable to respond to discovery because Johannes Van Ierland was stuck in Germany caring for his ill mother due the coronavirus pandemic. Under CRC Rule 3.1332(c)(6), there is good cause to continue trial when a party makes an affirmative showing that there has been an excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts. Defendants argue that the earliest date that Van Ierland would be able to return was August 17, 2020. Sherman, Defendants’ counsel, explains that he has had limited communication with Van Ierland after Van Ierland left to take care of his mother. Sherman also notes that responsive documents to Plaintiff’s requests for production are in a secure location that can only be accessed by Van Ierland. (See Sherman Decl. ¶¶ 8-12.)

The Court finds that Defendants have made an affirmative showing of good cause to issue a continuance of all pretrial dates.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial and all Related Dates is GRANTED. The new trial date will be set at the TSC. All pretrial discovery dates will follow the new trial date.