SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

Angela Beth Taslakian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and John Cedric King (“King”) (collectively, “Defendants”) on September 12, 2019 for damages arising out of a motor vehicle collision. 

 

The parties stipulated to continue trial, but the stipulation is not signed by all parties or all parties’ counsel of record.  (Motion, Exh. A, Stipulation.)  On December 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to continue the trial date from March 8, 2023 to September 27, 2023. 

 

Rule of Court 3.1332 authorizes a trial continuance on an affirmative showing of good cause.  Pursuant to Rule 3.1332, in ruling on an application or motion for continuance, the court must consider “a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; [t]he proximity of the trial date; [w]hether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; [t]he length of the continuance requested; . . . [t]he prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; . . . [w]hether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; [w]hether interests of justice are best served by a continuance; and [a]ny other relevant facts.”  (Rule of Court 3.1332(c)(6); Rule of Court 3.1332(d).) 

 

Here, trial is two months away, and Plaintiff seeks a continuance of approximately six months.  The parties have failed to conduct crucial discovery.  (Goldszer Decl. ¶ 5.)  Defendants have not yet deposed Plaintiff because of her current medical condition, and Plaintiff has not yet deposed Defendant King simply because he how lives out-of-state.  (Goldszer Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)  Moreover, the parties have stipulated to continue trial and agreed to mediation, hoping for an informal resolution to this dispute.  (Goldszer Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.)  A continuance will allow the parties to complete discovery and conduct private mediation.  (Goldszer Decl. ¶ 11.)  Neither party will be prejudiced if a continuance is granted, but both parties may be prejudiced if it is not granted.  Pursuant to Rule 3.1332, these factors favor a grant of the continuance. 

 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The March 8, 2023 Trial is continued to October 2, 2023 at 8:00 a.m. in Department 31. The February 22, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to September 18, 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.  However, the parties are put on clear and unequivocal notice that due to the age of this case, they should expect no further continuances.  They must plan their discovery, motion, and ADR practice accordingly.  Even if Plaintiff continues to treat, the matter must be brought to trial timely.  Any attempt to continue trial must begin with the sentence, “The parties were put on notice that they should expect no further continuances in this case.”  Failure to do so will be viewed as withholding a material fact. 

 

Moving party to give notice. 

 

Page Break 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 4th day of January 2023