RACHAEL WENDEL ET AL VS MARIN MARQUEZ ET AL

Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates

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

BACKGROUND

On December 7, 2017, Plaintiffs Rachael Wendel and Timothy Wendel (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Styline Logistics, Inc., Styline Transportation, Inc., Styline Logistics, OFS Brands Inc., Star Trucking Inc. Lone, Lone Star Trucking Group, Inc., and Marin Marquez.  Plaintiffs allege motor vehicle negligence and loss of consortium in the complaint arising from an incident involving an automobile on December 8, 2015.

On February 13, 2020, Defendants Styline Logistics, Inc. dba Styline Logistics and Marin Marquez filed a motion to continue trial pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

On February 24, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to March 26, 2020.

On March 18, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to May 29, 2020.

On April 21, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to August 24, 2020.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is scheduled for December 7, 2020.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

Defendants Styline Logistics, Inc. dba Styline Logistics and Marin Marquez (“Moving Defendants”) ask the Court to continue trial to September 21, 2020 and the final status conference to September 9, 2020, relating all discovery cut of dates to relate to the September 21, 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

The Court vacated trial and related dates on March 18, 2020 after Moving Defendants filed the instant motion..  Trial is not currently set.  As such, the motion is moot.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED as MOOT.  Nonetheless, rather than require the parties to appear for a later trial setting, the court sets the matter for trial on April 30, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 and for Final Status Conference on April 16, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28.  The parties may appear at the August 24, 2020 hearing of this matter if these dates conflict with any party or party’s counsel’s calendar.  

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.