Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV13970, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13970    Hearing Date: October 20, 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 Joan Lois Moseley (Defendant) moves to continue trial and all related dates. No opposition has been filed.  

BACKGROUND

The complaint was filed on April 27, 2022.

The answer was filed on June 22, 2022.

Trial was originally set for October 25, 2023. The Court continued the trial to November 8, 2023 pursuant to oral stipulation from the parties. (Min. Order, October 11, 2023.)

Defendant filed this motion on October 4, 2023.

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 an alleged motor vehicle accident that took place on May 12, 2021.

Defendant argues Plaintiff recently sought treatment with Dr. Grewal, a neurologist, in August 2023 and is now alleging he suffers from traumatic brain injury. Plaintiff first saw a neurologist on July 15, 2021, but declined to continue treatment and instead, sought treatment for his neck and spine only. Defendant first learned of the visit with Dr. Grewal on August 30, 2023, when Plaintiff reported it through supplemental discovery responses. Defendant requires more time to review the medical records from Dr. Grewal and the traumatic brain injury claim.  

Defendant requests the Court continue the trial date to 90 days or any date thereafter which the Court is available. The Court finds that the recent addition of Plaintiff’s traumatic brain injury claim warrants a continuance so that Defendant can conduct additional discovery.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

The trial date, currently set for November 8, 2023, is continued to February 6, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

The Final Status Conference, currently set for October 24, 2023, is continued to January 23, 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.