Motion to Continue Trial
23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 11/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.
The Court inadvertently posted an incorrect tentative ruling for this matter. The original tentative ruling is withdrawn and the Court issues a new tentative ruling as follows:
The motion of Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Defendant) to continue trial is unopposed but is denied, without prejudice.
A motion to continue trial must be supported by a declaration establishing good cause for a continuance. Here, the only evidence presented by Defendant relates to the parties potential conflicts with new dates. Although the motion argues additional time is needed to complete discovery and for the parties to participate in mediation, it is axiomatic that the arguments of Counsel is not evidence (People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal.4th 281, 313.) As Defendant did not present any evidence to support the arguments, there is no basis for a finding of good cause to continue the trial.
The motion is therefore denied, without prejudice.
This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this
23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 11/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
shall become the order of the Court.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
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?”