Motion to Continue Trial
34-2022-00330147-CU-PL-GDS: Jennifer Nevarez vs. Horizon Global Corporation, a Delaware Corporation 01/02/2026 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 hearing will be continued to January 5, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47.
The motion of Defendant Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. (Keystone) to continue trial is ruled on as follows. Appearances are required.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 12, 2026. Keystone requests a continuance to May 2026.
Keystone was previously represented by Joseph Urbanic of Jacobson Urbanic, L.L.P (Urbanic). In or around April 2025, Defendant Horizon Global Corporation (Horizon) agreed to defend Keystone pursuant to contractual defense and indemnity obligations. On September 29, 2025, Horizons parent company filed for bankruptcy, resulting in an automatic stay of the action as to Horizon, only. As a result, Horizon was no longer paying counsel retained on behalf of Keystone, resulting in Keystones former counsel, Urbanic, associating back into the case. Urbanic represents they are unavailable for trial due to a conflict with another matter scheduled to commence on January 5, 2026. Keystone also argues there is good cause for a continuance due to pending efforts to extend the scope of the stay and because Plaintiff has recently disclosed a new diagnosis that necessitates further discovery.
Plaintiff filed an opposition arguing Keystone has failed to show good cause for a continuance. Nonetheless, Plaintiff will agree to short continuance to specified dates, with expert discovery to remain open until 15 days before the new trial. Keystone represents conflicts with other trials
34-2022-00330147-CU-PL-GDS: Jennifer Nevarez vs. Horizon Global Corporation, a Delaware Corporation 01/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
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?”
approaching the five-year deadline would conflict with the dates proposed by Plaintiff.
To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Ibid.) The general rule governing continuances set forth in section 9 [of the Standards of Judicial Administration] is that . . . the necessity for the continuance should have resulted from an emergency occurring after the trial setting conference that could not have been anticipated or avoided with reasonable diligence and cannot now be properly provided for other than by granting of a continuance. (Lazarus v. Titmus (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [emphasis added].)
The Court finds good cause for a continuance based on the impact caused by the stay of one of the parties, including the need to associate counsel, the unavailability of newly-associated counsel due to a trial conflict, Plaintiffs willingness to agree to a short continuance, and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.
The January 6, 2026 mandatory settlement conference and January 12, 2026 trial dates are VACATED.
The parties failed to comply with Local Rule 2.11, which requires all parties to provide their availability for trial when a motion to continue trial is pending, regardless of whether the motion is opposed. Further, while Plaintiff provided proposed dates for trial, it appears Keystone has a conflict with the proposed trial dates. Appearances are therefore required so the Court may select a trial date that will not result in a conflict.
Prior to the hearing, all parties are directed to meet and confer to discuss their availability and to select mutually agreeable trial and MSC dates. The parties shall be prepared to present evidence of any conflicts at the hearing. Absent a timely request for oral arguments, the only issue that will be considered at the hearing is the selection of a trial date.
While Plaintiff appears to have agreed to extend the deadline for expert discovery, there is no evidence that the other defendants have agreed. Absent a stipulation, a continuance does not operate to reopen discovery that has already closed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(b).) All other statutory deadlines, including discovery that remains open at the time of the hearing on this
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00330147-CU-PL-GDS: Jennifer Nevarez vs. Horizon Global Corporation, a Delaware Corporation 01/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
motion, shall be governed by the new trial date. Nothing in this order affects the validity of any prior discovery agreements, nor is this order intended to limit the abilities of the parties to stipulate to modified discovery deadlines for from seeking to re-open discovery upon a showing of good cause.
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 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.