DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
34-2020-00285390-CU-PO-GDS·sacramento·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing over 2 years agoGRANTED

Michael Flynn vs. West Coast Arborists, Inc.

Motion to Continue Trial

Hearing date
Dec 1, 2023
Department
47
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
May 21, 2024
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMichael Flynn
DefendantWest Coast Arborists, Inc.
DefendantCity of Sacramento

Ruling

34-2020-00285390-CU-PO-GDS: Michael Flynn vs. West Coast Arborists, Inc. 12/01/2023 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 ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. 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 notice of motion fails to provide notice of the modifications to Local Rule 1.06 for motions pending before the Presiding Judge. All noticed motions in the Presiding Judge’s Department shall include the following information in the notice: “Local Rule 1.06 (A) is modified such that tentative rulings will be issued two days prior to the hearing date and the party requesting argument is required to provide notice to the Court and counsel of that request by noon the following day.” (Additional info available on the Court’s website at: https://saccourt.ca.gov/civil/presiding-judge-info.aspx.) Counsel for moving party shall contact all other parties and advise them of the modifications to the tentative ruling system for this motion.

On November 17, 2023 the Court issued an order setting hearing for this matter on shortened time (“the Order”). In the Order, the Court directed Moving Party to file moving papers by no later than November 20, 2023; Responding Party to file oppositions by no later than November 27, 2023; reply waived.

Good cause appearing, and no timely opposition having been received, the motion of Defendant City of Sacramento (“Defendant City”) to continue trial is GRANTED.

The Court finds good cause for a continuance as the motion is unopposed, and based on Defendant City’s counsel’s representation the due to various “significant personal and family issues that came to light for [him] very recently and unexpectedly” he has retired effective November 29, 2023. (Trimm Decl. ¶ 2.) Accordingly, Defendant City argues that good cause exists for a continuance to a date in late May of 2024, so as to allow sufficient time to get another attorney in Defendant City’s office to come up to speed. (Ibid.)

Considering Defendant City’s request, the Court’s calendar, the lack of any opposition, and the parties’ failure to comply with Local Rule 2.11, the December 4, 2023, trial date is CONTINUED to May 21, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept.

47. An MSC is set for April 29, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Dept.

59.

The Court notes that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020(a), discovery closes

34-2020-00285390-CU-PO-GDS: Michael Flynn vs. West Coast Arborists, Inc. 12/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47

30 days before the initial date set for trial. Expert discovery closes 15 days before the initial date set for trial. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.030.) Here, it appears fact-based discovery and expert discovery have closed.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020(b), a trial continuance does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. Absent a stipulation, such a request must be made via a separate noticed motion and must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.050(a) and 2024.060.) Parties do not present any evidence of a stipulation to reopen factbased discovery. Furthermore, parties fail to bring the request via separately noticed motion and do not provide the necessary meet and confer declaration.

Even if such request was raised by a separately noticed a motion to reopen discovery, such motions are not among the enumerated motions heard by the Presiding Judge. (Local Rule 1.05.) Nothing in this order is intended to prevent the parties from stipulating to reopen discovery, from seeking to enforce any prior stipulations regarding discovery, or from seeking to reopening discovery via noticed motion for 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 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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share