| Case Number: BC529500??? Hearing Date: July 14, 2017??? Dept: J
Re: Richard A. Mumford v. San Dimas Retirement Center, Inc., et al. (BC529500) MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Moving Party: Defendant HRHK, LLC dba Holistic Care Hospice 1 Respondents: No timely opposition filed (A Joint Stipulation to Continue Trial is attached to the moving papers.) POS: Moving OK In this action for elder abuse and wrongful death, Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff?s decedent was a resident at San Dimas Retirement Center, Inc., that she received hospice care at the facility by Ultimate Care Hospice, Inc. and Atul Aggarwal, M.D., and that Defendant abandoned and neglected the decedent. Plaintiff commenced this action on 12/4/13. The operative First Amended Complaint, filed on 7/31/14, asserts causes of action for:
On 9/16/14, Plaintiff dismissed Defendants San Dimas Retirement Center, Inc. and Longwood Management Corp. with prejudice. On 9/14/16, Plaintiff filed his Amended and Supplemental Complaint to Establish Successor Liability. The Final Status Conference is set for 9/25/17. A jury trial is set for 10/3/17. Defendant HRHK, LLC dba Holistic Care Hospice (?HRHK?) moves for an order continuing the 10/3/17 trial date and its associated 9/25/17 Final Status Conference date for a period of 60 days or as soon thereafter as the court?s calendar permits. ?Although 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. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:?(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances.? Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(c). ?In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.? Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(d). ?The trial court has discretion in ruling on requests to extend discovery deadlines or continue trial dates. Equally clear are the trial court’s statutory obligations to enforce discovery cutoff dates and to set firm trial dates. (Code Civ. Proc., ?? 2024, 2034; Gov.Code ? 68607, subd. (e)-(g); Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., ? 9.) Strict adherence to these delay reduction standards has dramatically reduced trial court backlogs and increased the likelihood that matters will be disposed of efficiently, to the benefit of every litigant. (See, e.g., Estate of Meeker (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1105, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 825.) Here, the trial court’s orders promote judicial efficiency by maintaining strict time deadlines.? Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246. ?But efficiency is not an end in itself. Delay reduction and calendar management are required for a purpose: to promote the just resolution of cases on their merits. (Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1085; Gov.Code, ? 68507; Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., ? 2.) Accordingly, decisions about whether to grant a continuance or extend discovery ?must be made in an atmosphere of substantial justice. When the two policies collide head-on, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency.? (Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 389, 398?399.) What is required is balance. ?While it is true that a trial judge must have control of the courtroom and its calendar and must have discretion to deny a request for a continuance when there is no good cause for granting one, it is equally true that, absent [a lack of diligence or other abusive] circumstances which are not present in this case, a request for a continuance supported by a showing of good cause usually ought to be granted.? (Estate of Meeker, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1105.).? Id. at 1246-1247. HRHK has shown good cause. HRHK?s trial counsel, Marc Katz, has a preplanned and prepaid vacation set from 10/5/17-10/9/17 which conflicts with the current 10/3/17 trial date. (Katz Decl., 4). There are no other attorneys that are authorized or able to take over the case as HRHK?s trial counsel. (Id., ? 2). HRHK has requested a continuance of the Final Status Conference and trial dates only. Significantly, the parties have executed a joint stipulation to continue Final Status Conference and trial dates for 60 days, or as soon thereafter as the court?s calendar permits. (Id., ? 7, Exhibit ?A?). Accordingly, the motion is granted. The new Final Status Conference and trial dates will be set at the time of the hearing. |
