Motion to Continue Trial
34-2022-00328643-CU-OE-GDS: Vanessa Singh vs. State of California, Department of General Services 06/27/2025 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 motion of Defendant Department of General Services (Defendant) to continue trial is ruled on as follows.
This is an employment action arising from alleged retaliation and discrimination against Plaintiff Vanessa Singh (Plaintiff). Trial is currently scheduled for September 22, 2025. Defendant requests a one-year continuance in order to complete discovery, engage in settlement negotiations, and to prepare a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
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
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?”
Defendant argue there is good cause for a continuance because the pleadings are not yet at issue. On May 14, 2025, the Court sustained, in part, a demurrer to Plaintiffs Third Amended
34-2022-00328643-CU-OE-GDS: Vanessa Singh vs. State of California, Department of General Services 06/27/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
Complaint, with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint on May 27, 2025. Thus, Defendant had an opportunity to review the operative complaint before filing this motion. Defendant does not represent that any further challenges to the complaint will be necessary and does not explain why there is insufficient time for Defendant to file an answer in advance of trial. Thus, Defendant has failed to show good cause for a continuance on this ground.
Defendant represents the parties have engaged in discovery that Defendant has identified 25 fact witnesses, and that additional time is needed for Defendant to determine which of those witnesses are still employed, to coordinate interviews or depositions, and to determine the extent of the witnesses involvement. Defendant filed its ex parte application on May 30, 2025 and trial is not until September 22, 2025. Thus, Defendant will have had more than two months to interview or depose witnesses before the discovery deadline. Moreover, alternative remedies, such as extending the deadline to complete discovery are available.
Defendant also identifies two other trials that purportedly interfere with Defendants ability to prepare for trial in this action. Defendant has two assigned trial counsel, each with a single purported conflict. Counsel Buffington indicates she is preparing for a trial in April 2026 and needs to meet and confer with opposing counsel as to discovery in that action. The Court is confident that Counsel Buffington is accustomed to managing handling several litigation matters at once and is not convinced that a trial in April 2026 will prevent her from preparing for trial in this action, particularly where co-counsel is available to assist.
Counsel Schaefer has a trial scheduled for October 13, 2025 in Kings County, which may result in a conflict if the trial in this action lasts four weeks. However, Defendant does not explain when the Kings County action was filed, whether it is likely to be ready for trial in October 13, 2025, and does not otherwise explain why this trial, rather than the Kings County action, should be continued.
Upon review of the collective papers and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, the Court finds Defendant has failed to show good cause for a continuance. The motion is DENIED.
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 day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00328643-CU-OE-GDS: Vanessa Singh vs. State of California, Department of General Services 06/27/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
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.