Motion to Continue Trial
34-2022-00326525-CU-PO-GDS: Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le 02/21/2025 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 notice of motion fails to provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system as modified for matters appearing on the Law and Motion in the Presiding Judges department. The notice must include both the verbatim notice of the Courts tentative ruling system as set forth in Local Rule 1.06(D) and the verbatim notice of the modifications to the tentative ruling system for motions pending in the Presiding Judges department, as forth in Local Rule 1.06(E). Counsel for moving party shall contact all other parties and advise them of the full tentative ruling system, including that the tentative ruling will be posted two court days prior to the hearing date and that requests for oral argument must be made by noon the court day before the hearing.
The motion of Defendant Khanh Q Le (Defendant) to continue trial is GRANTED. Appearances are required to select a date for trial.
Trial in this action is currently scheduled for April 14, 2025. Defendant requests a continuance due to a conflict with another trial. Plaintiff Lorena Maldonado (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
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?”
34-2022-00326525-CU-PO-GDS: Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le 02/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
granting of a continuance. (Lazarus v. Titmus (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [emphasis added].)
Defendants counsel is currently scheduled to commence a two-week trial on April 29, 2025 in the Merced County Superior Court. (Knudtson Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) Counsel anticipates the trial in this action will take 10 days and will prevent Counsel from preparing for trial in the Merced action and from complying the pre-trial filing requirements for that action. (Knudtson Decl., ¶¶ 5-9.) The Merced action was initially scheduled for trial on January 23, 2024 and has been continued twice. (Knudtson Decl., ¶ 5.) The instant action has not previously been continued.
Plaintiff argues the continuance should be denied because Counsel agreed to the current trial date and has failed to demonstrate an unexpected emergency that justifies continuing trial.
The purpose of a continuance due to conflicts with an attorneys trial calendar is to protect the right of the client to trial counsel of the clients choosing. (Oliveros v. Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389.) The Court is satisfied that the proximity, length, and complexity of the trials creates a conflict and that the conflict was created by the continuance of trial in the Merced action rather than the unexcused negligence of Defendant. Further, there is no evidence that Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a short continuance.
The Court finds good cause for a continuance based on the trial conflict, the lack of prejudice, and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332. The February 24, 2025 MSC and the April 14, 2025 trial dates are VACATED.
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. Accordingly, appearances are required to select a date for trial.
Prior to the hearing, the parties are directed to meet and confer to select a mutually agreeable date for trial on or after June 3, 2025 and whether the deadlines for discovery should be continued based on 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
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00326525-CU-PO-GDS: Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le 02/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.