Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV16190, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16190    Hearing Date: November 12, 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

Plaintiff Trenna Jones (“Plaintiff”) moves to continue trial and reopen discovery. Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc. (“Defendant”) opposes. No reply has been filed.

BACKGROUND

This case involves a slip and fall at a grocery store. The complaint was filed on May 16, 2022. Trial was initially set for November 13, 2023.   

Defendant filed an answer on May 22, 2023.

On September 28, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and related dates to April 18, 2024.

On March 20, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and related dates to October 15, 2024.

On May 22, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved.

On September 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney form, substituting current counsel Elina Shakhbazyan as Plaintiff’s new legal representative.

At the final status conference, after documents were not submitted, pursuant to oral stipulation, trial was continued to October 31, 2024. The discovery/motion cut-off was closed. (Min. Order, 10/1/24.)

On October 15, 2024, in order to hear the instant motion to continue and reopen discovery, the Court on its own, continued trial to December 2, 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.”  

8.      

(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).) 

In determining whether to reopen discovery, the court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)¿¿ 

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery, arguing that after Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved on May 22, 2024, Plaintiff was self-represented and only obtained new counsel on September 4, 2024. Plaintiff blames her prior counsel for not diligently completing discovery.[1] As a result, Plaintiff seeks a continuance to January 20, 2025.

It appears no discovery has taken place. Though not contained in the supporting declaration, Plaintiff asserts that she retained current counsel on September 4, 2024 and that upon substitution, counsel did not immediately receive Plaintiff’s case file from former counsel. (Motion, 7.) However, Plaintiff does not state exactly when the file was received.

In opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff delayed by waiting two months after substitution to seek relief from the Court. Defendant also asserts it will be prejudiced by reopening discovery.

Plaintiff filed this motion on October 14, 2024, roughly one month after the Substitution of Attorney form was filed. Additionally, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application on September 30, 2024 seeking relief. Therefore, it does not appear that Plaintiff delayed since she asserts her case file was not received immediately. Additionally, Defendant does not adequately articulate exactly how it would be prejudiced by reopening discovery and a brief continuance, considering that no discovery has taken place.

Therefore, the motion to reopen is granted and the Court finds good cause to continue trial to allow for discovery to proceed. However, the Court admonishes counsel to promptly complete discovery and prepare the case for trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to Continue Trial and Reopen Discovery.

The Final Status Conference is continued to February 11, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

Trial is continued to February 25, 2025, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

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.