Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV11382, Date: 2024-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11382    Hearing Date: August 19, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) moves to continue trial. Plaintiff Lisa Ray Woodard (“Plaintiff”) opposes and Defendant replies.

BACKGROUND

This case involves an alleged trip and fall on a sidewalk. The complaint was filed on March 24, 2021. Trial was initially set for September 21, 2022.   

The first amended complaint was filed on August 23, 2021.

Defendant’s answer was filed on February 9, 2022.

On July 20, 2022, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to September 11, 2023.

On August 8, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial only (not related discovery and motion dates) to April 8, 2024.

On March 14, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application and continued trial to June 10, 2024. Expert discovery cutoff dates were associated with the new trial date. (Min. Order, 3/14/24.)

On May 29, 2024, at the final status conference, pursuant to stipulation, trial was continued to June 26, 2024.  The discovery/motion cut-off was closed.

On June 6, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial to September 4, 2024. Pursuant to stipulation, the discovery/ motion cut-off remained closed.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard 

¿“Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”¿ (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)¿ A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.¿ (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)¿ California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.¿ 

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).)  

“A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).) 

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: 

1.     The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 

2.     The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 

3.     The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;  

4.     The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; 

5.     The addition of a new party if: 

A.    The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or 

B.    The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case; 

6.     A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or 

7.     A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.”  

8.      

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) 

“In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: 

1.     The proximity of the trial date; 

2.     Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; 

3.     The length of the continuance requested; 

4.     The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; 

5.     The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; 

6.     If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; 

7.     The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; 

8.     Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; 

9.     Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; 

10.  Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and 

11.  Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) 

In determining whether to reopen discovery, the court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)¿¿ 

Discussion

Defendant requests a trial continuance in order to hear a motion to augment its expert witness list that is scheduled for September 13, 2024, which is after the current trial date. Defendant asserts the expert designation in this case took place on February 19, 2024. Defendant designated three experts, including two physicians. (Lewis Decl. ¶ 2.) On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff underwent cervical surgery with Dr. Patrick Hill. (Id. ¶ 6.) After serving a subpoena and subpoena duces tecum, Defendant deposed Dr. Hill on May 21, 2024 who did not submit his medical records and partial billing until one week after the deposition. (Id. ¶ 9.) Around this time, Plaintiff’s counsel produced additional billing records of about $456,707 in liens connected to the cervical surgery. (Id. ¶ 10.) At this time, Defendant’s counsel considered retaining a billing expert, but waited until after a mediation hearing on June 17, 2024. After the case did not settle, on June 24, 2024, Defendant requested consent to augment its expert list to include a billing expert. Plaintiff did not consent to the request. (Id. ¶ 13.) On July 10, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to augment its expert designation list.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has known of Plaintiff’s neck surgery since March 4, 2024, and has delayed in seeking to augment the witness list.

Based on the procedural history above, the expert discovery motion deadline was May 31, 2024. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.030.)

Therefore, discovery is closed, and Defendant does not address the factors in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 to reopen discovery. Additionally, a cursory review of Defendant’s motion to augment its expert designation list also does not include a discussion of section 2024.050. Since the only basis to continue trial is to hear the pending motion, there is no good cause to continue the trial date.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to continue trial.

The motion to augment Defendant’s expert witness designation is advanced to August 22, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is continued to August 22, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 32.

Any opposition must be filed and served by August 20, 2024. A courtesy copy must be delivered to Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse by 4:00 p.m.

Any reply must be filed and served by August 21, 2024. A courtesy copy must be delivered to Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse by 4:00 p.m.

Failure to provide courtesy copies to the Court may result in the Court declining to consider the papers.

Defendant shall give notice of this order, and file a proof of service of such.