MOORE, et al. vs HAVILAND, et al.

24CV004242: MOORE, et al. vs HAVILAND, et al. 04/10/2026 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 Sacramento Superior Court is transitioning operations from the Gordon D. Schaber and Hall of Justice buildings to the new Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse through a phased move plan beginning on April 13, 2026. Visit the court’s website at www.saccourt.ca.gov for the most current and up to date information regarding the transition. The physical and mailing address of the new downtown courthouse is:

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse 500 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Please take notice, effective April 13, 2026, the Presiding Judge Law & Motion calendar will be moved from Department 47 at the Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse to Department 17A at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse, the Honorable Lawrence G. Brown presiding. All hearings currently scheduled or reserved after the effective date shall remain in place and will be heard in Department 17A.

Hon. Lawrence G. Brown Department 17A 916-874-5487 dept17A@saccourt.ca.gov ***

///

24CV004242: MOORE, et al. vs HAVILAND, et al. 04/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants John and Linda Haviland’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion to continue trial is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

This action arises out of the alleged breach of a settlement agreement that was intended to compromise a disputed claim between neighbors that Defendants’ obstructed Plaintiffs’ access to their residence.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 19, 2026. Defendants request a continuance approximately 3 months after the current trial date. They are not seeking to continue the April 14, 2026 mandatory settlement conference.

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule (“CRC”) 3.1332(a).) “Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.” (CRC 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.)

Defendants argue there is good cause for continuance because on March 6 and 13, 2026, Plaintiffs produced 18 still images and 327 videos responsive to discovery that Defendants propounded in 2024, which purportedly reflect Defendants’ alleged breach of the subject settlement agreement. Defendants argue that with the current trial date, they have “been placed in a precarious and prejudicial situation of lacking sufficient time to properly review the materials in order to make a determination whether further written discovery is warranted and/or further deposition testimony will be necessary prior to trial, and the potential for law and motion.” (Mot. to Con’t Trial 4:21-26; see Decl. of William A. Brenner ISO Mot. ¶¶ 10-16.)

No opposition to the motion has been filed.

The Court finds good cause for a continuance based on the foregoing and the factors set forth in CRC 3.1332. Accordingly, the motion is granted, and the May 19, 2026 trial date is VACATED. The April 14, 2026 mandatory settlement conference remains on calendar as currently scheduled.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV004242: MOORE, et al. vs HAVILAND, et al. 04/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

The parties failed to comply with Local Rule 2.11, which requires all counsel to provide their availability for the 90-day period following the current trial date, regardless of whether the motion is opposed. As a result, the Court is unable to select a date for trial that will not result in a potential conflict. Therefore, the Court will instead refer this matter to the Trial Setting Process.

This case is referred to the Trial Setting Process for selection of a trial date. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon a trial date. Available dates can be obtained on the Court’s web site at http://www.saccourt.ca.gov, or by recorded message at 916-874-6098.

Defendants’ counsel must notify the court of the selection of a trial date within 60 days of the date of this order by completing the request form at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/civil/trialsetting.aspx. If the parties have not agreed on dates before the 60th day, court staff shall assign mandatory settlement conference and trial dates that are next available, unless an extension of time has been granted by the appropriate Case Management Program Judge.

All trial related and discovery deadlines shall be governed by the new trial date.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; CRC, rule 3.1312.)

*** 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-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV004242: MOORE, et al. vs HAVILAND, et al. 04/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

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 Court’s 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 Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. ***