Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV12152, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV12152 Hearing Date: January 4, 2023 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
ILAN N. ROSEN JANFAZA, Plaintiff, vs. ANDRES GUTIERREZ, ET AL., Defendants. | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. January 4, 2023 |
On April 9, 2019 Plaintiff Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Andres Gutierrez and Elizabeth Gutierrez (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on April 10, 2017. Trial is currently set for January 26, 2023.
The Court previously denied the parties’ stipulation to continue trial on November 8, 2022 because there was insufficient cause shown, given that this case is nearly four years old. On November 22, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion to continue the trial date from January 26, 2023 to August 2023 or later. The motion is unopposed.
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, Defendants provide the request for a trial continuance is being made jointly by the parties. Defendants assert that despite their diligence, Defendants have not been able to complete Plaintiff’s deposition. (Lee Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendants provide Plaintiff’s deposition was originally set for October 18, 2021, but was continued at Plaintiff’s request to August 10, 2022, due to medical reasons. (Ibid.) Defendants thereafter rescheduled the deposition to September 15, 2022, but the deposition did not go forward, as Plaintiff had a conflict. (Ibid.) Defendants attest that they have contacted Plaintiff’s counsel to obtain new dates, but Plaintiff’s counsel was allegedly on medical leave. Defendants contend they cannot adequately prepare for trial until they are able to depose Plaintiff. Further, Defendants state that they have scheduled motions to compel compliance with deposition subpoenas for May 17, 2023, to obtain Plaintiff’s medical records. Lastly, Defendants assert that defense counsel must answer ready for trial in another matter on January 23, 2023.
There is a question here as to whether Defendants have acted with diligence in attempting to obtain Plaintiff’s deposition. While Defendants contend they cannot proceed to trial without Plaintiff’s deposition, to date, no motion to compel such has been filed in this matter. Further, Defendants’ counsel does not offer any explanation as to why other counsel from defense counsel’s firm cannot substitute for trial counsel during the period of alleged conflict with the other action.
Nonetheless, other relevant factors favor a trial continuance. As Defendants assert, Plaintiff did not serve them with the summons and complaint until June 10, 2021, and Defendants did not answer until July 21, 2021. Further, the initial trial date of October 6, 2020, was vacated in part due to the Covid-19 pandemic. (Min. Order, Aug. 28, 2020.) After Defendants appeared in the action, the matter was set for trial for January 26, 2023. This will be the first continuance granted since Defendants have appeared. Additionally, the continuance will allow Defendants’ motions to compel compliance with deposition subpoenas to be heard and is the proper relief to seek instead of seeking to specially set or shorten the hearing time for those motions. Further, Defendants provide the request is being made jointly by the parties, and no opposition to the motion has been received.
Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted. The January 26, 2023 trial date is continued to September 19, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The January 12, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to August 29, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31. All trial related dates will be continued consistent with the new trial date including all discovery deadlines. The parties are put on notice that there will be no further continuances in this matter. They must plan all motion and discovery practice accordingly. The failure to diligently file a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is not cause for a continuance.
Moving party to give notice.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
Dated this 4th day of January 2023
| |
Hon. Audra Mori Judge of the Superior Court |