Motion to Continue Trial
34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 04/25/2025 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 Defendants Diane Waters and Sarah Waters (Defendants) to continue trial is ruled on as follows.
This is an employment action for restitution of unpaid wages, unlawful deductions, and civil penalties. Trial is currently scheduled for June 2, 2025.
Defendants request a continuance of trial on grounds Defendant Sarah Waters was not added as a defendant until December 10, 2024 and has not had an adequate opportunity to prepare for trial. The record indicates Sarah Waters filed a demurrer to the complaint, which is pending for hearing on May 27, 2025.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues six months provided adequate time for Sarah Waters to prepare for trial following substitution and argues Defendants are merely seeking to delay trial due to their own failure to conduct discovery.
34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 04/25/2025 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?”
While Plaintiff is correct that Sarah Waters could have commenced discovery, the Court is not persuaded that Sarah Waters was required to complete all discovery and prepare for trial within six-months of being named as a defendant. Further, it is apparent from the record that this action will not be ready for trial as scheduled. Issues to be determined at trial do not arise until a fact or conclusion of law asserted by one part is controverted by the answer of another. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 588-590.)
Thus, the Court cannot determine what evidence and witnesses are material until all defendants have filed an answer. (See Cholakian & Associates v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 361.) Here, Sarah Waters demurred to the complaint and has not yet filed an answer. The hearing on the demurrer is scheduled for May 27, 2025, less than a week before trial. Even if the demurrer is overruled, Sarah Waters would not be required to file an answer until after trial has commenced. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(g).)
If, in contrast, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, the action may be further delayed.
Based on the foregoing and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, the Court finds good cause for a continuance. As the outcome of the pending demurrer will impact the length of the necessary continuance, the Court will not select a new trial date at this time. Rather, the Court will refer this action to the trial setting process.
The motion is granted. The May 5, 2025 mandatory settlement conference and June 2, 2025 trial dates are VACATED.
This case is referred to the Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates consistent with the above deadline. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon trial and settlement conference dates. Available dates can be obtained on the court's web site at http://www.saccourt.ca.gov, or by recorded message at 916-874-6098. Plaintiff's counsel must notify the court of the selection of Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial dates within 60 days of the date of this order by completing the request form at http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/trialsetting. If the parties have not agreed on dates before the 60th day, court staff shall assign Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial dates that are next available, unless an extension of time has been granted by the appropriate Case Management Program Judge.
A continuance does not operate to reopen discovery that is already closed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020(b).) All other statutory deadlines, including discovery and expert discovery that remain open at the time of the hearing, 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
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 04/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
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 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.