Judge Audra Mori, Case 19STCV06540 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

The present action arises from a claim of subrogation. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) issued a car insurance policy to non-party Lionel Dozier (hereinafter, “Plaintiff’s Insured”). Subsequently, on May 8, 2018, a vehicle owned by Larry Washington, Jr. (“Defendant”) collided with another vehicle driven by Plaintiff’s Insured. As a result of the vehicle collision, Plaintiff’s Insured suffered a loss that was covered by the insurance policy and which was paid by Plaintiff. Plaintiff brings the present action for the purposes of obtaining subrogation of the payment made to Plaintiff’s Insured, against Defendant.

On February 26, 2019, Plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a Complaint against Defendant. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a single cause of action for “Subrogation”. On March 22, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer. On December 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case. Pursuant to the Notice of Settlement of Entire Case, the Court vacated all future scheduled hearing dates, including the impending trial date of February 15, 2022. The Court additionally scheduled an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) to proceed on June 20, 2022.

On June 20, 2022, during the aforementioned Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff represented that Defendant has not sent the settlement payment check to Plaintiff, and, therefore, Plaintiff requested a new trial date be set in this action. The Court, accordingly, indicated that this action would proceed to trial more than a year and a half later on January 31, 2023.

On December 19, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Continue Trial and All Trial Related Deadlines. By virtue of the aforementioned Motion, Defendant, at this time, moves for an Order continuing the trial date of January 31, 2023 by approximately three (3) months to April 10, 2023, in order to allow the parties to settle this action. There has been no opposition filed by Plaintiff against Defendant’s 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).)

Presently, Defendant moves for a continuance of the trial date of January 31, 2023 by approximately three (3) months to April 10, 2023, in order to permit the parties additional time to reach a settlement of this action. Defendant provides the parties previously reached a settlement in this action about one (1) year ago, however the parties were ultimately unable to finalize this settlement due to unforeseen circumstances. (Blanco Decl., ¶ 3.) The parties, now, are actively discussing settlement once again, and recent unidentified developments in the past few weeks have allowed the parties to make progress in reaching a settlement. (Ibid.) The parties believe that a settlement can be finalized in January or February of 2023, and the parties have signed a stipulation agreeing to continue the trial date in order to facilitate such a settlement. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5, Ex. A.)

The Court observes that the parties are in agreement with respect to continuing the trial date in this action in order to allow the parties additional time to reach a settlement in this action. (Blanco Decl., Ex. A.) However, this is the third request for a trial continuance in this action (previous continuances have been requested by stipulation and proposed order on July 22, 2020 and May 12, 2021). The parties have not demonstrated that they have acted diligently, and the case is nearly four years old now. While the Court finds there is sufficient good cause to permit a short, third trial continuance in this action, the date requested by the parties is unavailable, and a longer continuance is not justified under the circumstances.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Trial Dates is GRANTED. Trial is continued from January 31, 2023 to February 24, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is continued to January 18, 2023 to February 16, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31. All trial related dates and deadlines are continued pursuant to the new trial date. If the parties would like a referral to the Resolvelawla.com mandatory settlement conference program, they may request one at the hearing on this matter. The parties should expedite their settlement discussions, as they cannot expect to receive a fourth continuance in this matter.

· 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.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court