Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV00468, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV00468    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Elizabeth Amezquita (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Kenneth Douglas Kochakji (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle vs. pedestrian accident.  Trial is currently set for May 1, 2023. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date for at least 180 days.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. 

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, Defendant avers a continuance is necessary because there are multiple discovery disputes pending between the parties.  Defendant asserts that the first issue relates to examinations of Plaintiff by a neurologist and a neuropsychologist, and Defendant has filed a motion to compel the exams, but the first available hearing date for the motion was April 12, 2023.  The second issue relates to Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s physician’s, Dr. Ata Kashani, deposition, which is set for hearing on April 24, 2023.  Defendant argues that the dates of the motion leave no time to complete discovery and prepare for trial.  Lastly, Defendant asserts that he requires additional time to take Plaintiff’s son’s deposition after Plaintiff reneged on an agreement to produce her son for deposition.  Defendant argues that no party will be prejudiced by the continuance.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to litigate this matter, and Plaintiff asserts that her son has now appeared for deposition.  Plaintiff argues Defendant’s motion raises the same issues previously raised by Defendant in connection with a previous request to continue the trial date, and Plaintiff provides that she has stipulated to dropping all claims for neurological injuries and a traumatic brain injury.  Plaintiff contends that she will be prejudiced if the trial date is delayed. 

In reply, Defendant argues that additional time is needed to complete discovery, including compelling Dr. Kashani’s deposition after Dr. Kashani, who is allegedly counsel’s father, failed to comply with two prior subpoenas.  Further, Defendant contends that while Plaintiff claims she is dropping all claims for neurological injuries, Plaintiff has not presented anything in writing to that effect. 

            The relevant factors weigh in favor of a short continuance.  Defendant has two discovery motions set to be heard on April 12 and 24, 2023, approximately two weeks and one week before trial, respectively.  Following the motions to compel Plaintiff’s mental exams and to compel the deposition of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Defendant will require additional time to complete the discovery, if the motions are granted.  No alternative means are identified to address these issues, and as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Defendant now properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing dates for his discovery motions.  Furthermore, although Plaintiff contends she will be prejudiced if the trial date is delayed, Plaintiff fails to articulate how a continuance will prejudice her.  However, there have already been three prior trial continuances in this action, with the last continuance continuing the previous trial date for nearly one year from June 17, 2022, to May 1, 2023.  (Min. Order, May 16, 2022.)  Accordingly, the Court will grant only a short continuance to allow the Defendant’s motions to be heard.  The parties must expect no further continuances.  They must plan all motion and discovery practice accordingly. 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The May 1, 2023 trial date is continued approximately 60 days to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The April 12, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

Defendant 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 1^st day of March 2023