Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV21917, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV21917    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 24, 2019, Plaintiff Daniel Garcia (“Garcia”) filed this action against Defendant Ebrahim Mohiseni Abbaspour (“Abbaspour”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Abbaspour filed a cross-complaint against Garcia for negligence as a result of the same motor vehicle accident.  Garcia has dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  Trial is currently set for December 9, 2022. 

Abbaspour now moves to continue the current trial date to October 9, 2023.  Garcia opposes 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; 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, Abbaspour, through counsel, asserts that the attorney-client relationship has deteriorated, and communications have broken down such that they cannot be repaired.  Abbaspour asserts that Abbaspour’s counsel will be filing a motion to be relieved as counsel, and it would be a wasteful exercise to require the parties to prepare for trial when Abbaspour’s counsel will seek to be relieved. 

In opposition, Garcia argues that Abbaspour fails to establish good cause for the requested continuance.  Garcia contends that Abbaspour cannot justify a ten-month continuance but if the motion is granted, the trial should be continued by no more than 90 days. 

The Court notes a motion to be relieved as counsel was filed by Abbaspour’s counsel on October 4, 2022.  Given the current trial date of December 9, 2022, the motion to be relieved cannot be granted without prejudicing Abbaspour.  Accordingly, based on the representations that the attorney-client relationship and communications have broken down such that Abbaspour’s counsel cannot represent Abbaspour, the trial date must be continued before the Court will consider granting a motion to be relieved as counsel.  Abbaspour, thus, establishes good cause to continue the trial. However, given the age of the case, the parties should expect no further continuances and should plan all motion practice accordingly. 

Abbaspour’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The December 9, 2022 trial date is continued to April 10, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The November 29, 2022 Final Status Conference is continued to March 27, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

Abbaspour 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 21^st day of October 2022