Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV05728, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV05728    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Mabuwa Kintaudi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Maya L. Eller and Youssef Hanine (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for February 16, 2023. 

Defendants now move to continue the current trial date for five to six months.  No opposition to the motion has been received.    

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 contend there is good cause to continue the trial date because through no fault of their own, essential discovery remains outstanding.  Defendants provide they answered the complaint on December 16, 2021, and served their first set of written discovery on Plaintiff on January 13, 2022.  Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to provide any responses to the discovery until May 13, 2022.  Following meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff agreed to provide further responses to Defendants’ form interrogatories and agreed to extend the time for Defendants to file a motion to compel further to November 1, 2022.  After Plaintiff did not serve further responses, Defendants reserved an informal discovery conference for February 14, 2023, and filed a motion to compel further responses to the subject form interrogatories.  Additionally, Defendants argue that despite properly noticing Plaintiff’s deposition on two occasions, Plaintiff has not appeared for Plaintiff’s deposition.  Defendants aver they will be severely prejudiced in their ability to prepare for trial without this discovery.  The Court notes that Defendants’ motion to compel further responses is currently set for hearing on March 14, 2023, after the current trial date. 

The motion is unopposed, and Defendants establish good cause for the continuance.  Moreover, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Defendants properly seek to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date for the informal discovery conference or the motion to compel further.  Given the age of the case, the parties must expect no further continuances.  They should plan all discovery and motion practice accordingly. 

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted.  The February 16, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The February 2, 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. 

Defendants are 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 14^th day of December 2022