Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV47439, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47439    Hearing Date: February 15, 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 Uber Technologies (“Defendant”) moves to continue trial. Co-defendant Salim Leonardo Gomez joins the motion. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on December 29, 2021. Trial was initially set for June 28, 2023.

            Defendant’s answer was filed on May 2, 2022.

            On March 6, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to November 29, 2023.

            On September 15, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to the current trial date of April 12, 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

This case involves alleged injuries from a motor vehicle accident. Defendant asks the Court to continue trial to August 23, 2024. Here, Defendant argues a continuance is necessary because on January 11, 2024, it learned Plaintiff began central nervous system (“CNS”) therapy for injuries associated with the incident. (Lee Decl. ¶ 2.) At the time of filing this motion, Defendant did not know the identities of her treating physicians, the scope of treatment, or the costs. Defendant propounded discovery on January 11, 2024 with responses due February 14, 2024. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant argues it does not have enough time to complete discovery by the March 12, 2024 cutoff date, or potentially raise a motion to compel further. Defendant also argues it retained Dr. Brian Jack to perform a mental examination on Plaintiff and was informed the earliest possible date was March 25, 2024. (Id. ¶ 3.) Lastly, the parties attended an unsuccessful mediation on December 8, 2023, but have expressed a willingness to attempt another.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant first learned of Plaintiff’s CNS treatment on December 1, 2023 and provided verified discovery responses with the names of Plaintiff’s treating physicians on January 26, 2024. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant served subpoenas on December 11, 2023 and January 22, 2024 for Plaintiff’s medical records, and will receive them before the discovery cut-off. (Opp., 2.) Plaintiff also argues that Defendant has known of Plaintiff’s mental claims since June 26, 2022 and that she already sat for a two-day neuropsychological IME on November 1–2, 2023.

In reply, Defendant argues it issued deposition subpoenas for Plaintiff’s treating physicians and billing PMKs set for March 2024. (Reply, 2.) It also argues it must complete this discovery before attempting a second mediation. In a sur-reply, Plaintiff argues she would stipulate to extending the expert discovery cut-off date but not the trial date.

Here, based on the fact that Defendant learned of Plaintiff’s new treatment on January 11, 2024, there appears to be good cause for a brief trial continuance so Defendant may conclude its discovery. It also does not appear that Plaintiff would be severely prejudiced by a brief continuance. Given that Defendant has yet to receive responses to its medical subpoenas, it appears a brief continuance is warranted. Moreover, a motion to compel has been scheduled for May 29, 2024.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court grants in part Defendant’s motion for a continuance.

The trial date, currently set for April 12, 2024, is continued to July 23, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

The Final Status Conference, currently set for March 27, 2024, is continued to July 9, 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.