Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 18STCV05038, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV05038    Hearing Date: September 20, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 13, 2018, Plaintiff, Desiree Acosta (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants City of Pasadena, et al. for damages arising from a trip and fall on a sidewalk.  Trial is currently set for January 9, 2023.

Defendants Joseph Krikorian and Arpi Krikorian (collectively, “Defendants”) now move to continue the current trial date by 90 days.  Alternatively, Defendants move to advance to an earlier date the hearing on their motion for determination of good faith settlement, which is currently set for hearing on December 20, 2022.  Plaintiff has filed a joinder to the motion. 

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; the proximity of the trial date; 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, Defendants assert they have settled this case with Plaintiff following mediation, but co-defendant City of Pasadena (the “City”) has a cross-complaint against Defendants for equitable indemnity pending, and the City has not indicated whether it will stipulate to Defendants’ settlement being in good faith.  Defendants assert the earliest hearing date they were able to obtain for their motion for determination of good faith settlement was December 20, 2022.  Alternatively, Defendants request the Court continued the hearing on their motion for determination of good faith settlement to an earlier hearing date. 

Plaintiff, in her joinder, requests the Court advance the hearing date on Defendant’s motion, rather than continuing trial.  Plaintiff, however, provides that if the hearing date cannot be advanced, then a trial continuance should be limited to 60 to 90 days. 

As to the request for an order advancing the hearing date for Defendants’ motion for determination of good faith settlement, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, the Personal Injury courts do not have the capacity to add hearings to their fully booked motion calendars.  The proper relief to seek is to continue trial instead of seeking to advance or shorten the hearing time. 

Therefore, the proper relief to seek is to continue the trial date.  Defendants timely filed their motion for determination of good faith settlement, but the first available hearing date was only three days before the Final Status Conference in this matter set for December 23, 2022.  Moreover, Plaintiff does not oppose a short continuance and no other party opposes the motion.  Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial date. 

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted.  The January 9, 2023, trial date is continued to May 31, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The December 23, 2022, Final Status Conference is continued to May 17, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cut-off dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.

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 20^th day of September 2022