Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV25510, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25510    Hearing Date: July 18, 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

Cross-Defendant Berry Bowl Los Angeles, LLC (“Cross-Defendant”) moves to continue trial and all related dates. No opposition has been filed.  

BACKGROUND

This case involves injuries from a sliding gate that occurred on July 28, 2022. The complaint was filed on August 8, 2022. Trial was initially set for February 5, 2024.  

Defendants Viken Ouzounian, Raquel Ouzounian, VRCC York, LLC, VRCC Lincoln, LLC, Don’s Auto repair & RV Center, and Don’s Auto Repair & RV Center (“Defendants”) filed an answer on November 3, 2022.

On January 11, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial to August 5, 2024, and granted leave to Defendants to file a cross complaint.

On February 13, 2024, Defendants filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnification, apportionment of fault, and express indemnity against “Berry Bowl” and Roes 1 to 25.

On May 14, 2024, Cross-Defendant (sued erroneously as Berry Bowl), filed an answer to the cross complaint.

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).) 

Discussion

Here, Cross-Defendant seeks to continue trial and all related dates to May 22, 2025. Cross-Defendant argues the continuance is needed because it entered this case on May 14, 2024, and thus requires more time to conduct discovery. Additionally, it contends that Plaintiff is still treating injuries and that all parties have stipulated to the continuance. Cross-Defendant estimates that it will need 40 to 60 days to conduct written discovery and 3 to 5 months to receive Plaintiff’s subpoenaed medical records. (Shaw Decl. ¶ 6.) As a result, Cross-Defendant requests 7 to 9 months to prepare a defense.

However, Cross-Defendant does not explain its diligence in conducting discovery since May 2024, nor does it describe with specificity the outstanding discovery. Accordingly, Cross-Defendant does not justify the need for a lengthy continuance.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part Cross-Defendant’s motion to continue trial.

The Final Status Conference is continued to January 16, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

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

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

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