Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV21631, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21631    Hearing Date: September 21, 2023    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 Pace Family Trust (“Defendant”) moves to continue trial and all related dates. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on June 10, 2021.

            The answer was filed on December 13, 2021.

            Trial was initially set for December 8, 2022 and was continued to October 5, 2023 by stipulation.  

            On August 23, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application and continued the trial to October 23, 2023 and the final status conference to October 9, 2023.

            Defendant now moves to continue trial to January 5, 2024 or later, and to continue all pre-trial and trial-related dates in accordance.

In their notice of non-opposition, filed on September 15, 2023, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is agreeable to the continuance, and that the parties have scheduled a January 29, 2024 mediation. In light of this development, they request a continuance of at least March 2024.

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.”

(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).)

Discussion

Defendant argues that a continuance is necessary because it recently received new discovery from Plaintiff. First, Defendant argues that in Plaintiff’s May 26, 2023 deposition, he disclosed that his primary care physician treated him for the injuries related to this lawsuit. However, once they subpoenaed and received his records on July 28, 2023, Defendant discovered Plaintiff was treated by other providers. Defendant also states that Plaintiff’s deposition was originally set for March 10, 2023, but three days before, Plaintiff cancelled. (Frasher Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant asserts it needs more time to depose these additional physicians, which were never disclosed in Plaintiff’s written discovery. Secondly, Defendant asserts that during Plaintiff’s deposition, it learned he was injured in a motor vehicle accident after the events of this case and underwent spinal surgery. (Frasher Decl. ¶ 7.) Defendant states it has subpoenaed medical records for this subsequent injury and is waiting to receive them. The medical records indicate that Plaintiff was still receiving treatment when the subsequent injury occurred. (Frasher Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant states it will suffer irreparable harm if a continuance is not granted to allow for the additional discovery. Finally, Defendant states that the parties have agreed to a continuance to accommodate a January 29, 2024 mediation.

The Court finds good cause to continue the trial date. However, there are currently no available trial dates in March 2024 in this Department. Accordingly, the Court continues the trial date to April 15, 2024.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to continue trial and trial-related dates.

The trial date, currently set for October 23, 2023, is continued to April 15, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

The Final Status Conference, currently set for October 9, 2023, is continued to April 1, 2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be in accordance with the new trial date.

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