Motion to Continue Trial
24CV000489: METCALF-KUNELLIS vs SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, et al. 12/26/2025 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.
If a timely request for oral arguments is made, the hearing will be continued to December 29, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47, for oral arguments only.
The notice of motion incorrectly cites Local Rule 1.06 as authority for the Courts tentative ruling system. The Courts tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judges department is governed by Local Rule 1.05(C)-(D), which has different requirements for requesting oral argument. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and/or self-represented litigants and advise them of the correct local rule, the Courts tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing.
The motion of Defendants Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Mobrays Tree Service (Defendants) to continue trial is ruled on as follows.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 14, 2026. Defendants Counsel represents trial was scheduled without coordination from the defense and that Counsel has a conflict with another trial in a prior-filed action that is scheduled to commence on April 15, 2026 in San Mateo County.
Defendants also contend there is good cause to continue trial because there is insufficient time to complete discovery. Defendants indicate they need to complete discovery related to a motor vehicle accident on April 18, 2025 that contributed to the injuries claimed in this action and that Defendants may need to add an additional party via cross-complaint. Defendants contend they
24CV000489: METCALF-KUNELLIS vs SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, et al. 12/26/2025 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?”
are unable to complete the necessary discovery because Plaintiff failed to appear for a noticed deposition and to provide dates for deposition. Defendants indicate there is a pending motion to compel the deposition.
Plaintiff Pamela Metcalf-Kunellis (Plaintiff) opposes the motion. Plaintiff explains that trial was set before Defendants Counsel substituted into this action and that Counsel should therefore have been aware of the trial conflict when Counsel accepted representation. Plaintiff does not dispute that Plaintiff delayed appearing for deposition, but indicates the deposition has now been scheduled. Nonetheless, Plaintiff will agree to a short, one-week continuance to accommodate Counsels trial conflict.
In reply, Defendants acknowledge Plaintiffs deposition has now been scheduled but contend the six-month delay still prevents them from completing discovery, particularly as Defendant has not yet been able to identify the potential cross-defendant who may have caused the motor vehicle accident and has not received information from Plaintiff regarding the accident. Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how a continuance would cause prejudice.
Upon review of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, the Court finds good cause for a continuance. The March 9, 2026 MSC and April 14, 2026 trial dates are VACATED.
In reply, Defendants provide information as to when they are available for trial. Upon review of that information and the Courts calendar, trial is scheduled for June 2, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 47. A mandatory settlement conference is scheduled for April 29, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 59.
All trial related and discovery deadlines shall be governed by the new trial date.
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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV000489: METCALF-KUNELLIS vs SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, et al. 12/26/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
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.