Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV02032, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02032    Hearing Date: October 24, 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 Rosa Soriano (“Plaintiff”) moves to continue trial and all related dates and to reopen discovery. Defendants Antonio F. Urrea and Estella Urrea (“Defendants”) oppose. No reply has been filed.

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on January 31, 2023, and alleges negligence and premises liability based on a fall. Trial was initially set for July 30, 2024.

            Defendants’ answer was filed on August 28, 2023.

            On June 13, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to October 1, 2024.

            On September 16, 2024, at the final status conference, pursuant to oral stipulation, the Court continued trial to October 14, 2024. The discovery/motion cut-off was closed, and the pre-trial motion cut-off remained in effect. (Min. Order, 9/16/24.)

            On September 30, 2024, trial was continued to November 13, 2024. The discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates remain associated with the October 14, 2024 trial date. (Min. Order, 9/30/24.)

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).)

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 asks the Court to reopen discovery and continue trial for 60 days to December 16, 2024. Plaintiff would like to depose Defendants and complete a site inspection of the area where Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell. Plaintiff’s counsel also states he will be engaged in a trial on October 14, 2024, and the parties plan to mediate.

In opposition, Defendants argues Plaintiff was dilatory in completing discovery. Defendant further argues that the necessity and reasons for the discovery is low.

Plaintiff has not filed a reply, but in the motion argues that the email exchanges show that Plaintiff believed the parties would work together to complete the depositions. However, the evidence set forth by Plaintiff shows that counsel did not attempt to schedule the depositions until June 2024, when trial was set for July 30, 2024 at the time. (Vaziri Decl. ¶ 10.) On June 11, 2024, the parties then stipulated to a three-month continuance of trial and related dates. (Id. ¶ 15.) During this period, Plaintiff did not serve deposition notices or move to compel. However, on July 17, 2024, Plaintiff offered July 26, 2024 as a deposition date in response to Defendants’ counsel’s assertion that he was booked throughout August, but available in the second half of July. (Id., Exh, G.) Plaintiff’s counsel never heard back, and on August 14, 2024, requested dates for the depositions and to conduct a site inspection. (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff’s counsel then followed up with an email on August 23, 2024, asking Defendants to confirm a site inspection on September 5, 2024. Defendants stated they were unavailable. Plaintiff emailed again on September 3, 2024, September 12, 2024, and September 19, 2024, asking for dates for depositions and the inspection. (Id. ¶ 23-26.) On September 19, 2024, Defendants advised Plaintiff that the discovery cut-off had passed.

While the history above shows that Plaintiff attempted to schedule dates with Defendant, Plaintiff does not adequately explain why she did not attempt to schedule the depositions earlier, before June 2024, when Defendants first appeared in this case on August 28, 2023. Given the three-month continuance that was granted in June 2024, Plaintiff could have filed motions to compel the depositions. Additionally, Plaintiff does not state when her inspection expert was first retained, or why she waited until August 14, 2024 to request the site inspection. (See Vaziri Decl. ¶ 20.) Therefore, the Court has considered the factors set forth in section 2024.050 and finds that Plaintiff provides insufficient good cause to reopen discovery.

Furthermore, since Plaintiff’s counsel sought to also continue trial due to a trial commitment, finding that the trial has since been continued to November 2024, that argument appears moot. Additionally, Plaintiff provides insufficient information on the alleged mediation between the parties. Therefore, since the remaining reason to continue trial is to complete discovery, and the request to reopen discovery has been denied, the Court finds no good cause to continue trial.  

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to continue trial and all related dates.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial and all related dates.

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