Motion to Continue Trial
34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 08/15/2025 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 incorrectly cites Local Rule 1.06, as previously modified for this department, as authority for the Courts tentative ruling system. Counsel for moving party is advised the tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judges department is now governed by Local Rule 1.05(C)-(D) and that all future notices should reference that rule.
The motion of Defendants Eduardo Calderon and Milgard Manufacturing, LLC (Defendants) to continue trial is ruled on as follows. Appearances are required to select a date for trial.
Trial is currently scheduled for September 22, 2025. Defendants request a continuance on grounds their retained neuropsychologist, who performed a medical examination of Plaintiff, is unavailable from September 17, 2025 through October 22, 2025 due to a pre-planned trip that cannot be cancelled. Defendants explain the expert will be unavailable to testify remotely due to a 9-hour time difference. Defendants also indicate Plaintiffs Counsels unavailability for expert depositions between September 1, 2025 and September 8, 2025 favors a continuance. Defendants request a 30 to 60 day continuance.
Plaintiff opposes the motion. The current trial date was selected by the parties by stipulation in September 2024. Thus, Plaintiff contend Defendants were aware of the both the trial date and the name of the expert on February 25, 2025, when they issued notice of a medical examination, and argues Defendants should have confirmed the experts availability for trial at that time. As an alternative remedy, Plaintiff argues a 9-hour time difference is not significant and that the expert can appear remotely as the first witness in the morning in order to permit remote testimony. Further, Plaintiff represents, without supporting evidence, that Counsel has other trials and arbitrations that would prevent a continuance to the 30 to 60-day time frame requested by Defendants.
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?”
34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 08/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
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 unavailability of an expert witness due to excusable circumstances is good cause for a continuance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(1).)
The evidence indicates that Defendants attempted to determine the experts availability before disclosing the expert. Counsel should have confirmed the experts availability at the time of retention, or if the expert was retained before the trial date was selected, at the time the parties met and conferred on a trial date. Had Defendants done so, at a minimum, this motion could have been filed sooner. However, the Court is aware of the reality that finding non-conflicting trial dates is difficult and that schedules change.
While Defendants may have been able to confirm the experts availability sooner, Defendants did not wait until the eve of trial after experts had been disclosed. Further, while Defendants Counsel could have acted sooner to confirm the experts availability is Defendants themselves, not their counsel, that would suffer the prejudice from being unable to present essential expert testimony. Finally, the Court is not persuaded that a short delay or advancement of the trial date will cause prejudice to Plaintiff.
Thus, the Court will not require the Defendants to forego expert testimony or to arrange for remote testimony with a 9- hour time difference if a reasonable alternative date can be obtained. However, the Court lacks sufficient information to determine whether an alternative trial date can be arranged as 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, with specific dates of unavailability, regardless of whether the motion is opposed.
Accordingly, appearances are required to select a date for trial.
The Court has availability to advance trial to September 9, 15 or 16, or to continue trial to a date between October 27 and December 9.
Before the hearing, the parties shall exchange their availability, including their counsels and experts availability for depositions and trial. The parties shall select a mutually agreeable trial date within the time frames specified above and develop a discovery plan to complete depositions.
If the parties are unable to select an alternative trial date, the parties shall be prepared to provide details regarding the reasons for their unavailability so that the Court may consider whether to order a longer continuance at the hearing or whether to keep trial as currently scheduled.
Unless a timely request for oral argument is made, the only issue the Court will consider at oral arguments is the selection of a trial date based on the parties respective availability for trial.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 08/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
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.