Motion to Continue Trial
34-2023-00334819-CU-WT-GDS: Michael De Leon vs. J.M Equipment Company, Inc 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A
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 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. 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 17A at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.
The motion of Defendants J.M. Equipment Company, Inc., Mike Koop, and Matt Taylor (Defendants) to continue trial is DENIED.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 1, 2026. Defendants requests a continuance so that they may conduct a medical examination of Plaintiff Michael De Leon (De Leon). Defendants indicate their experts first availability to conduct the examination is June 23, 2026. While this motion was pending, the Court issued an order granting Defendants motion to conduct a medical examination. (Minute Order, 05/18/2026.) The Courts order directed the parties to meet and confer as to an examination date before the current trial date, but indicated the parties had agreed to meet and confer on a later date if trial is continued.
Defendants provided initial notice of its demand for a medical examination on February 26, 2026. (Odell Dec., ¶ 3.) Defendants initial demand requested Plaintiff appear for the examination on April 22, 2026. (Ibid.) The parties met and conferred but were ultimately unable to agree to all conditions and terms for the examination. (Ibid.) As a result, the examination did not move forward on April 22, 2026. Defendants filed their motion to compel the examination on April 14, 2026.
Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff argues Defendants unreasonably delayed in seeking to conduct the medical examination and that there is no good cause for a continuance. Specifically, Plaintiff notes the parties initially discussed the potential examination in April 2025 and that it took Defendants 10 months, until February 2026, to send a proposed stipulation.
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?”
The Court finds Defendants request for a medical examination, made on February 26, 2026, four months before trial, was reasonably calculated to permit the examination to be completed before trial, including allowing time for a potential motion to resolve foreseeable discovery disputes. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause for a continuance based on the need for additional time to complete the medical examination and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, including the number of trials in other actions currently scheduled for the same date.
The June 1, 2026 trial date is VACATED. Defendants propose a continuance to September 2026. However, 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. The Court treats the failure to comply as a concession that the parties have no conflicts with the proposed timeline and will set trial on the earliest date available.
Trial is set for September 1, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 17A. A mandatory settlement conference is set for July 30, 2026 at in Room 450.
The discovery deadline for purposes of completing Plaintiffs examination, as well as any other discovery deadlines that remain open as of the date of this hearing shall be based on the new trial. However, the continuance does not operate to re-open any discovery deadlines that are closed as of the date of this hearing. All other trial-related non-discovery deadlines shall be based on the new trial date. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)
This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. 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
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00334819-CU-WT-GDS: Michael De Leon vs. J.M Equipment Company, Inc 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A
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.