Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 18STCV01944, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV01944    Hearing Date: August 24, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Mary Lim (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on October 23, 2018. The Complaint alleges that on April 30, 2018, Plaintiff sustained injury while walking on a driveway near Serrano and 6th Street in Los Angeles because of an unsafe condition. Plaintiff alleges one cause of action for premises liability against the Defendants City of Los Angeles (the “City”) and Colonnade Wilshire Corporation (“Colonnade”).  On December 20, 2021, an Order of Dismissal was entered as to Colonade.  Trial in this matter is currently set for September 20, 2022. 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on July 22, 2022, which Plaintiff reserved as, “Hearing on Motion – other proof of service” on the Court’s Online Reservation System.  The caption of the motion provides it is a “Motion to Reschedule for Postpond [sic].”  The motion is unopposed.

Much of Plaintiff’s motion is unclear.  However, Plaintiff is seemingly requesting, in part, that the Court enter default against Colonade.  This request is improper for various reasons, including that Colonade has been dismissed from the action, and the dismissal has not been set aside. 

Plaintiff apparently further is requesting a $400 sanction against Plaintiff be removed for discovery.  The Court notes that on January 28, 2021, it granted the City’s motion to compel responses to the City’s form interrogatories, set one, served on Plaintiff and awarded $400 in sanctions to City against Plaintiff.  Thereafter, Plaintiff filed two motions for reconsideration relating to the January 28, 2021 order; both motions were denied.  (Min. Orders, April 5, 2021, and Aug. 20, 2021.)  Plaintiff does not cite any authority showing the sanctions award should be removed, and thus, the request is denied. 

Lastly, it appears Plaintiff is requesting the current trial date be continued to February 2023.  Plaintiff provides Plaintiff has reserved a motion to set aside dismissal for January 2023, which the Court’s records show has been reserved for January 18, 2023. 

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:  (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance 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; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Here, Plaintiff provides the earliest available date for her motion to set aside dismissal was for January 2023, and thus, requests the trial date be continued to at least February 2023 so that the motion can be heard.  As the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Plaintiff properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to advance or shorten the hearing time for motion to set aside dismissal.  Plaintiff, thus, establishes good cause for the continuance.  However, given the age of this case, the Court will not be inclined to grant further continuances absent a strong showing of good cause. 

Plaintiff’s request to continue trial is granted.  The September 20, 2022, trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The September 7, 2022, Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 24^th day of August 2022