Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV14197, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14197    Hearing Date: October 8, 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

BACKGROUND

 Plaintiffs Patsy Hills and Linda Rumph (“Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint against Defendant on June 20, 2023, alleging cause of action for Motor Vehicle arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 29, 2021, at or near Fairfax and Pico in Los Angeles, California 90019. (Rivera Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant filed and served her Answer on August 7, 2023. (Id.)

Defendant Lisa Renee Martin (“Defendant”) now moves for an order to continue trial and all related pre-trial dates and deadlines. No opposition has been filed.

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 has shown good cause to continue trial. Defendant requests that the Court continue the trial in this matter from December 17, 2024, to March 25, 2025, for the below reasons.

Here, on March 13, 2024, Defense counsel sent an email correspondence to meet and confer with Plaintiffs and obtain their availability to appear for deposition. Defense counsel’s correspondence was met with no response so on March 18, 2024, Defense counsel sent another email correspondence to inquire into Plaintiffs’ availability. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s office provided dates of availability for Plaintiff Patsy Hills and advised she would have availability for Plaintiff Linda Rumph by the end of day. (Rivera Decl. ¶3.) That same day on March 18, 2024, Plaintiffs counsel’s office advised that Plaintiff Linda Rumph was hospitalized, and awaiting a heart transplant. Due to Plaintiff Rumph’s impending health condition, Defense counsel agreed to hold off on Plaintiff Rumph’s deposition. (Rivera Decl. ¶5.)

Due to the delay in taking Plaintiff Linda Rumph’s deposition, Defendant has been unable to obtain further discovery on Plaintiff Rumph’s alleged injuries, subpoena additional medical records based on her deposition testimony, have her additional records and deposition testimony reviewed by a defense expert, and have her appear for an Independent Medical Examination. (Rivera Decl. ¶¶6,8,9,16.) Trial is currently set for December 17, 2024. Furthermore, Defendant argues the continuance would not prejudice any party. No opposition has been filed.

Therefore, because Defendant has been unable to complete discovery, despite diligent efforts, the Court finds good cause to continue trial. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Continue Trial and Discovery Cutoff.

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

The Final Status Conference is continued to March 11, 2025 at 10:00 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.