Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV18097, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18097    Hearing Date: July 17, 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 Dermatology & Laser Medical Center, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to continue trial and all related dates to February 11, 2025. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

The complaint was filed on June 2, 2022 and alleges injuries from a medical procedure. Trial was initially set for November 30, 2023.   

On November 14, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court set aside Defendant’s default. Defendant was ordered to file a responsive pleading within 15 days. The Court also continued trial and all related dates to September 11, 2024.

On November 30, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court extended the deadline for a responsive pleading to January 5, 2024.

On June 3, 2024, Defendant filed a demurrer and motion to strike, currently scheduled for August 1, 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

Defendant argues that co-defendant Alex Khadavi (“Khadavi”), who was the sole owner and shareholder of Dermatology & Laser Medical Clinic, has passed away. The identification and appointment of an executor of Khadavi’s estate was completed in February 2024. (Arshakyan Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s counsel was notified of this development. No discovery has taken place. Defendant requests a continuance to February 11, 2025, for time to amend the complaint and complete discovery.

Defendant further asserts that the parties have stipulated to this continuance. (Id., Exh. A.) There has been only one prior continuance in this case and no opposition has been filed.

Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial date.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants Defendant’s motion to continue trial.

The Final Status Conference is continued to January 28, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Trial is continued to February 11, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

All discovery and related deadlines are associated with the new trial date.

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