Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV13267, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13267    Hearing Date: October 15, 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

Defendants Felix LLC and Felix Chevrolet, L.P. (“Defendants”) move to continue trial and all related dates. Plaintiff Yolanda Navarro (“Plaintiff”) opposes, and Defendants reply.

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on June 9, 2023, alleging a negligence action based on a fall. Trial was set for December 6, 2024.

            On October 2, 2023, Defendants filed an answer.

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

Defendants request a trial continuance to May 2025. Defendants argue they still need to conduct additional discovery such as expert discovery and lay depositions and an independent medical examination. Defendants also assert the parties are on a waitlist to mediate this case with Judge Craig Silver. No supporting declaration was filed with this motion.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues her medical records have been subpoenaed, her deposition was taken September 23, 2024, and her defense medical examination will take place October 11, 2024. On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff will take the deposition of Defendants’ employee Elder Rodriguez who purportedly approached Plaintiff when she fell. The expert exchange is set to take place October 17, 2024. Plaintiff confirms the parties are on a waitlist for mediation. However, because Plaintiff anticipates all discovery to be complete before trial, there is no good cause for a continuance. Plaintiff also argues that she will be prejudiced if trial is continued, despite diligently prosecuting this case, since the injury took place over three years ago.

In reply, Defendants refute that Plaintiff diligently prosecuted this case and argue she was granted four months of extensions to respond to discovery. However, Defendants also argue that during Plaintiff’s deposition, she testified about new treating medical providers and attorney retained providers. Defendants argue they are still waiting for the deposition transcript to identify and subpoena these providers. If trial is not continued, the medical records may be received after the discovery cut-off.

The Court finds that a continuance is warranted to conduct additional discovery on Plaintiff’s new providers, which Defendants anticipate they will receive medical records in mid-November. However, the seven-month continuance appears excessive, given the limited information provided. Therefore, considering there has been no prior continuance in this case, the Court grants in part the motion to continue trial and all related dates.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS in part Defendants’ motion to continue trial and all related dates.

The Final Status Conference is continued to January 15, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Trial is continued to January 29, 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.¿¿ 

No further continuance absent sufficient good cause.

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