Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Dates
Karl Robert Bouder v. Jaime Del Real, et al.
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Dates
Hearing Date: June 12, 2026
The motion of Defendants Jaime Del Real and Salma Real (“Defendants”) to continue the trial on July 27, 2026, and all related dates, including the Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) on June 30, 2026, is GRANTED. The Court will complete and sign the Proposed Order accompanying Defendants’ motion.
Legal Standard.
The California Rules of Court emphasize that the trial date should be regarded as fixed. [Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1332, subd. (a).] Trial continuances are disfavored and are only continued, in the court’s discretion, if there is an affirmative showing of good cause. [Id. at subd. (c); see also Gov. Code, § 68607, subds. (f), (g).] The motion must be made “as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” [Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1332, subd. (b).]
When a motion to continue a trial is filed, the trial court evaluates all relevant factors indicating good cause. This includes circumstances such as the unavailability of witnesses, parties, or counsel due to death, illness, or other justified reasons [Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1332, subds. (c)(1)-(3)], a party’s inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other evidence despite diligent efforts [id. at subd. (c)(6)], and significant, unexpected changes in the case’s status that make it unready for trial [id. at subd. (c)(7)].
Other factors that the trial court should consider include: (1) how close the trial date is; (2) whether there has been any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay caused by any party; (3) the length of the requested continuance; (4) whether there are alternative ways to address the issue that led to the motion for a continuance; (5) the potential prejudice to parties or witnesses from the continuance; (6) if the case qualifies for a priority trial setting; (7) the trial court’s schedule; (8) whether trial counsel is involved in another trial; (9) whether all parties agree to a continuance; (10) whether justice best favors a continuance, the trial of the case, or conditions on the continuance; and (11) any other relevant fact or circumstance for a fair decision on the motion. [Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1332, subd. (d).]
Discussion.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
before the trial are significant, unforeseen changes that leave the parties unprepared for trial. [Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1332, subd. (c)(7).] Additionally, Defendants, despite their diligence, have been unable to obtain critical testimony, documents, or other evidence because Plaintiff (1) has not disclosed any expert witnesses despite the nature of the case, (2) refused to undergo an independent medical exam regarding his head and other injuries unless ordered by the court, (3) has not been deposed, and (4) has been unable to coordinate effectively with defendants to discuss the case due to his whereabouts and circumstances. [See Ramirez Decl. at ¶¶ 4-11 and Exhs.
B-H; Plaintiff’s Opp. at Exhs. A; Ramirez Reply Decl. at ¶¶ 4-14 and Exhs. B-R; Ramirez Supp. Reply Decl. at ¶¶ 3-5 and Exhs. S-T.] While Plaintiff disputes Defendants’ characterizations, the evidence submitted with their motion and reply papers convinces the Court that a trial continuance is justified.
The Court has also reviewed other relevant factors [Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1332, subd. (d)], and decided to GRANT the motion. Since this is the first request for a continuance, the four-month delay requested by Defendants is reasonable under the circumstances. Without a continuance, both parties would face prejudice. Defendants have not had enough time to gather essential evidence for their defense. Additionally, for Plaintiff, issues such as representing himself, unreliable communication methods, housing instability, and trouble with legal filings suggest he requires more time to prepare for trial or secure legal representation. Overall, granting a continuance is justified to serve the interests of justice.
Conclusion.
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The trial scheduled for July 27, 2026, is CONTINUED to November 30, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 14. Consequently, the previously scheduled dates for the Trial Management Conference and MSC in Department 14 are CONTINUED to November 20 at 10 a.m. and October 20 at 1:30 p.m., respectively.
The Court will finalize and sign the Proposed Order accompanying Defendants’ motion. Defendants shall give notice to all parties.
2