Motion to Continue Trial
34-2022-00326525-CU-PO-GDS: Lorena Maldonado vs. Khanh Q Le 08/08/2025 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 Khan Q Le dba Signet Nail Spa to continue trial is DENIED.
Trial is currently scheduled for September 2, 2025. Defendant requests a continuance of trial to February 2026.
Defendants Counsel recently substituted as counsel on June 17, 2025. (Minioza Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Defendant argues that two and a half months does not provide a sufficient amount of time to prepare for trial.
Defendant argues there is good cause for a continuance because Defendants Counsel substituted in as counsel on June 17, 2025, two and a half months before trial, does not have sufficient time to prepare for trial given the short timeline, and is unavailable for trial.
A defendant many not obtain a trial continuance by manufacturing a conflict on the eve of trial through an unnecessary substitution of counsel. Rather, a substitution of counsel is good cause for a continuance only where it is made in the interests of justice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(c)(4).) Defendant does not provide any information that would support a finding the substitution was made in the interests of justice. Rather, Defendant merely indicates that we were informed that this case is being transferred from the Longyear & Lavra law firm with no explanation as to the reason for the substitution. (Minioza Decl., ¶ 4.)
Further, Counsel was aware of the trial date at the time the substitution was filed and nonetheless agreed to the substitution. (Id., ¶ 6.) Even if the substitution were made in the interests of justice, the motion would be denied. As Plaintiff notes in opposition, Defendant provides evidence that Joseph J. Minioza is unavailable
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 08/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
for trial but the substitution of attorney indicates that Jocelyn M. Soriano is counsel of record. Defendant does not provide any information explaining why Jocelyn M. Soriano, as counsel of record, is unavailable for trial.
Finally, the Court notes that Counsel Miniozas conflict is a trial in a San Francisco case with a case number indicating that action was filed in 2024. Defendant fails to provide any explanation as to why a 2024 case should take precedence in trial over this case, which was filed in 2022.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds there is not 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 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 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.