Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 21STCV36476, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

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 (which is highly encouraged). 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.

DEPARTMENT	32
HEARING DATE	August 10, 2023
CASE NUMBER	21STCV36476
MOTION	Motion to Continue Trial
MOVING PARTY	Defendants David Kamrava, Pulmonary Medical Corporation, and Tom Yadegar
OPPOSING PARTY	Plaintiff Judith Hay

Defendants David Kamrava, Pulmonary Medical Corporation, and Tom Yadegar move to continue trial from January 9, 2024 to May 27, 2024, or to a date convenient for the Court’s calendar. Plaintiff Judith Hay opposes this motion.

This action arises out of an accident Plaintiff sustained at work in July, 2020. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 4, 2021.

Trial was previously continued by joint stipulation on February 23, 2023. Trial is currently set for January 9, 2024.

“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. Whether the parties have stipulated to the postponement is a relevant factor for consideration. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 595.2, but see Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753, 756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely “directory”].)

First, Defendants contend that if trial were not continued, their motion for summary judgment would not be heard until two months after trial. (Lang Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendants contend that they realized that a summary judgment motion was merited while preparing responses to Plaintiff’s supplemental discovery requests in April 2023. (Ibid.) The ground for the summary judgment motion is that California’s workers’ compensation laws generally provide that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy against an employer for an employee’s injury or death that arises during the course and scope of employment. (Ibid.) On May 7, 2023, counsel for Defendants reserved the first available hearing date, March 5, 2024, taking into account the parties impacted calendars and sufficient notice time, for Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; which is just over two months after trial is currently set to commence. (Id. at ¶ 24.)

Second, Defendants contend that the parties have been unable to complete essential discovery. For example, the parties have been unable to schedule a date for the deposition of Defendant Tom Yadegar because Counsel for each side has a heavily impacted trial calendar. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Nor have the parties been able to execute the scene inspection of the office site where the accident occurred. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-12.) Additionally, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not adequately noticed the deposition of Dr. Amerian. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-15.)

Third, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has been “obstreperous” in objecting to the Defense’s subpoenas for Plaintiff’s medical records. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-22.)

Fourth, Defendants anticipate that Plaintiff will file Motions to Quash the subpoenas issued by Defendants. (Id. at ¶ 23.)

Furthermore, Defendants contend that no prejudice will result to either party because discovery is still ongoing and the parties are not facing any written discovery, expert discovery, or motion deadlines. (Id. at ¶ 26.) Defendants contend that, to the contrary, they would be extremely prejudiced by not having their summary judgment motion heard.

On the other hand, Plaintiff contends that the outstanding discovery is not grounds for good cause to continue trial because all remaining discovery can be completed prior to the current December 12, 2023 discovery cutoff. According to Plaintiff, the following items of discovery are yet to be completed:

Further, Plaintiff contends that the parties have been unable to complete discovery thus far because of Defendants’ repeated obstruction and bad faith conduct. Defendants submitted late and non-code compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission to Defendant Kamrava, Set Two, and did not serve compliant responses until February, 2023, which was six months after responses were originally due. (Golriz Dec. ¶ 4.) Additionally, Defendants failed to preserve the pull-up bar involved in the subject accident, necessitating a motion for spoliation of evidence set for September 14, 2023. Still further, Plaintiff contends Defendants cancelled the original inspection of the office site two hours before it occurred and then were unable to wait an extra 1.5 hours for Plaintiff on the rescheduled inspection date. (Golriz Dec. ¶¶ 13-14.) Plaintiff also contends that the deposition of Dr. Amerian was unable to proceed on May 5, 2023 because Defendant Kamrava called Dr. Amerian’s wife that morning and told her that they should not proceed without counsel. Defense counsel did not attend and threatened to sue Dr. Amerian if he proceeded. (Golriz Dec. ¶ 17.) This has led to Plaintiff filing a motion for sanctions against Defendants related to their conduct with Dr. Amerian, set to be heard on September 13, 2023. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants have filed a number of overbroad subpoenas, forcing Plaintiff to file motions to quash to protect Plaintiff’s privacy.

The factors for the court to consider in evaluating whether good cause exists include: (1) Proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) Length of the continuance requested; (4) Availability of alternative means to address the problem raised in the motion; (5) Prejudice suffered if continuance is not granted; (6) If the case is entitled to 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 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 relevant to the fair determination of the motion (C.R.C. 3.1332 (d).)

Liberality should be exercised in granting postponements of trials to obtain presence of material evidence and to prevent miscarriages of justice. (Canal Oil Co. v. National Oil Co. (App. 3 Dist. 1937) 19 Cal.App.2d 524.)

Defendants request a continuance of four months, to May 27, 2024, or to a date thereafter convenient for the Court’s calendar, so that the Court can hear Defendants' summary judgment motion before trial. The summary judgment hearing is set for March 5, 2024. Defendants do not explain why trial could not be held nearer to the summary judgment hearing, rather than almost two months after.

There are no alternatives to continuing trial because Defendant reserved the earliest possible date for its summary judgment hearing and that date is currently after trial. Defendants state that, were the Court to accommodate the summary judgment hearing before the current trial date, they would remove their request for trial continuance.

Defendants contend they will be prejudiced were the Court not to continue trial because they would be forced to expend resources on a trial that otherwise may not have been held were the Court to have heard their summary judgment motion before trial. Defendants contend that a trial would involve several experts and take weeks.

Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that she would be prejudiced were trial continued because she has already been robbed of her initial court date and would be unable to move on with her life were trial continued. Further, Plaintiff contends that granting this motion will result in severe prejudice to her because she has already been deposed, forced to answer extensive discovery from three separate Defendants, awaited the outcome of IDCs, and fought attacks to her constitutional right to privacy, and a continuance would merely allow Defendants to make additional attempts to harass and oppress her. (Opposition, p. 13, lines 23-26.)

Nothing Plaintiff asserts as prejudicial is unique to Plaintiff. All parties in civil actions are subject to depositions and other forms of discovery, and required to attend IDCs to resolve outstanding discovery issues. Though Plaintiff attempts to frame Defendants’ subpoenas for Plaintiff’s medical records as attacks on her right to privacy, subpoenas also constitute a standard method of discovery. Plaintiff does not make an adequate showing that Defendants’ intention is to harass and oppress her.

Thus, it appears that not granting the continuance would result in severe prejudice to Defendants while granting the continuance would not result in prejudice to Plaintiff.

Granting a continuance will impact the Court’s calendar. However, courts have consistently held that decisions as to requests for a continuance must be made in an atmosphere of substantial justice, and the strong public policy favoring disposition of a case on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency. (Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 638.)

Though Defendants exhibited some delay in complying with certain discovery requests, such as filing late responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission to Defendant Kamrava, Set Two, Defendants did not delay in scheduling the date for the summary judgment hearing upon learning of the grounds for the motion.

The Court is guided by the case of Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court. The Court therein held that a trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c. (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918. 919.) Local rules and practices may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion. (Id.; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529.) “We are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions.” (Id., at p. 530.)

On balance, and considering the policy favoring deciding cases on their merits, the Court finds that good faith exists to continue trial and all related pretrial dates. However, given that the discovery cutoff date is December 12, 2023, the Court finds that the parties have ample time to complete the outstanding discovery.

The Final Status Conference is continued to April 22, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Trial is continued to May 6, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

All discovery and motion cut-offs, except for expert discovery and motions, shall be associated with the January 9, 2024 trial date.

Defendants shall give notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.