Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV20969, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV20969    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Nancy Reyes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Richard J. Feldman, M.D. (“Defendant”), erroneously named Dr. Richard Feldman, for medical malpractice arising out of Defendant’s orthopedic care and treatment of Plaintiff.  Trial is currently set for October 14, 2022.

Plaintiff now moves to continue the current trial date.  Plaintiff contends there is good cause to continue the trial date because Plaintiff’s counsel has just welcomed his first newborn and will be taking paternity leave.  Further, Plaintiff provides that Plaintiff’s counsel has been forced to take significant time off to care for his mother-in-law, who was in a serious car accident, and Plaintiff represents the matter is not ready to proceed to trial.

However, as Defendant asserts in opposition, Plaintiff filed her motion on August 24, 2022, which was only nine court days before the hearing.  There is no proof of service attached to the motion, and Defendant attests it was served on Defendant that same date.  “Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.”  (CCP § 1005(b).)  Accordingly, Plaintiff was required to file and serve the moving papers by August 15, 2022. 

In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant appeared and opposed Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue trial heard on August 12, 2022, and so, Defendant was present when the Court instructed Plaintiff to immediately file a noticed motion.  However, Plaintiff appears to misunderstand the Court’s ex parte ruling.  The Court did not shorten the time for which Plaintiff could make a noticed motion to continue trial, rather the Court only denied the ex parte application without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a noticed motion.  (Min. Order, Aug. 12, 2022.)  Given Defendant’s objection to the short notice, and the fact that it is improper and a violation of CCP § 1005 for Plaintiff to unilaterally file a motion on shortened noticed after an ex parte requesting the same relief is denied, the motion will be continued to allow Defendant to file a supplemental opposition to fully address the merits of the motion. 

The hearing on the motion is continued to September 23, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  If this date is not an available date for Plaintiff, Plaintiff may use the online reservation system to change the hearing date to the next available convenient date in the system.  Defendant may file a supplemental opposition at least nine court days before the continued hearing date.  Any supplemental reply must be filed at least five court days before the continued hearing. 

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 7^th day of September 2022