Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV00446, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00446    Hearing Date: June 7, 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

This case arises from an alleged motor vehicle collision with a pedestrian. On April 25, 2024, Defendants Quick Fleet Services, Inc., Manuel Ayon Salazar, Jose Luis Rodriguez, Oscar Jacob Rubio, and OnTrac Logistics Inc. (“Defendants”) filed the instant motion to continue trial and related dates. Plaintiff Dana Musharbash (“Plaintiff”) opposes, and Defendants reply.

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on January 5, 2022.

            Quick Fleet Services, Inc.’s answer was filed on June 13, 2022.

            Michael Ayon Salazar’s answer was filed on September 26, 2022.

            On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint, substituting OnTrac Logistics, Inc. as Doe 7.

            On November 20, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application and continued trial and all related dates from January 3, 2024 to July 15, 2024.

            On December 15, 2023, Jose Luis Rodriguez filed an answer.

            On March 15, 2024, OnTrac Logistics, Inc. (“OnTrac”) filed an answer.

            On April 8, 2024, Oscar Jacob Rubio filed an answer.

            On April 29, 2024, Defendant OnTrac filed a motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff’s action. The hearing is set for January 3, 2025.

            Trial is currently set for July 15, 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

Defendants request a trial continuance because counsel for Defendants was assigned this case on March 26, 2024. Defendants’ counsel has a pre-planned, pre-paid vacation scheduled during this trial. (Walshok Decl. ¶ 11.) Defendants further argue that Plaintiff did not diligently conduct discovery in this case, resulting in Jose Rodriguez and Ontrac’s late arrival to this case (their respective answers were filed on December 15, 2023 and March 15, 2024). Defendants argue they have conducted fact discovery in this case, have issued subpoenas, and scheduled Plaintiff’s deposition on April 26, 2024. (Walshok Decl. ¶ 20.) Defendants also assert they require more time for expert discovery. As a result, Defendants seek a continuance of six months to October 28, 2024, or any time after.  

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that she dismissed OnTrac with prejudice on May 7, 2024. This is reflected in the docket. Plaintiff argues she has worked diligently to conduct discovery before trial, and Defendants were not specific in describing what discovery is still required. Additionally, Plaintiff notes that default was entered against Defendant Oscar Jacob Rubio (“Rubio”) on November 13, 2023, and it has not been withdrawn. (Mohrman Decl. ¶ 6–7.) Rubio is alleged to have driven the vehicle that ran over Plaintiff.

In reply, Defendants argue that since filing this motion, they have discovered a conflict between Rubio and Quick Fleet, which employed Rubio at the time. (Walshok Decl. ¶ 2.) As a result, Defendants’ counsel asserts he cannot represent both parties. A new attorney has been selected for Rubio, but counsel has been unable to contact the new attorney. (Id. ¶ 4.) Due to this conflict, Defendants argue they cannot fully respond to the discovery. In reply, Defendants’ counsel specifies that his preplanned vacation will last during the Final Status Conference on July 1, 2024 until July 10, 2024. (Id. ¶ 12.)

Based on the information provided, it appears the parties have been engaged in discovery leading up to trial. Though Defendants seek a continuance to October 28, 2024, they fail to offer specific reasons why discovery must also be continued. Fact discovery will end on June 15, 2024 and expert discovery will end on June 30, 2024. Defendants fail to show that they will be unable to complete discovery by those deadlines. However, seeing as Defendants’ counsel have preplanned vacations that fall in the period between the final status conference and just before trial, the Court finds good cause for a short continuance.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court GRANTS in part Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

The Final Status Conference is continued to August 1, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

Trial is continued to August 15, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall remain in accordance with the July 15, 2024 trial date unless otherwise stipulated by the parties. 

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