Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV11833, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11833    Hearing Date: September 19, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

ROMEL GEWARGES,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

HUGO ANIBARRO, ET AL.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 20STCV11833

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

 

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

September 19, 2022

 

Plaintiff Romel Gewarges (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Hugo Anibarro (“Anibarro”), Ana Mena (“Mena”), and Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  The complaint alleges causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence.  Trial is currently set for October 24, 2022.    

 

Plaintiff now moves to continue the current trial date to March 30, 2023.  Anibarro and Mena (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the motion, and Plaintiff 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, Plaintiff first asserts that the “Court granted a continuance to Defendant and unilaterally set this case for trial in October.”  (Mot. at p. 4:19.)  The Court notes that the current trial date was set after Defendants’ ex parte application for an order continuing trial was granted.  (June 28, 2022.)  Notably, Plaintiff did not file an opposition the ex parte application.  Plaintiff, thus, had an opportunity to object to the proposed October trial date but failed to do so. 

 

Nonetheless, Plaintiff further contends there is good cause for the continuance because Plaintiff has filed two motions to compel responses to discovery, but the earliest available hearing date for these motions was January 13, 2023.  Plaintiff asserts he has also scheduled an Informal Discovery Conference for October 10, 2022, two weeks before trial, to address the discovery issues between the parties.  Plaintiff avers he will be prejudiced if he is not heard on these pending discovery issues, and that Plaintiff will not be able to prepare his case for trial.  Additionally, Plaintiff asserts there is still outstanding discovery that has not been completed, and that Plaintiff is undergoing extensive efforts to locate Defendants’ vehicle that Defendants failed to preserve. 

 

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to establish good cause to continue the trial date, and Defendants contend that discovery has been sufficiently finalized.  Defendants contend Plaintiff had sufficient opportunity to obtain discovery but has not done so, and any harm to Plaintiff is the result of Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in preparing for trial. 

 

Plaintiff, in reply, argues that Plaintiff has diligently attempted to obtain relevant evidence, but Defendants did not preserve relevant evidence concerning their vehicle, and Defendants are objecting to producing the vehicle’s raw data to Plaintiff. 

 

Although Defendants contend Plaintiff did not diligently conduct discovery, Defendants do not challenge Plaintiff’s contention that there is a discovery dispute regarding evidence that may be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.  Further, Plaintiff has filed motions to compel discovery responses regarding the discovery, but the motions cannot be heard until after the current trial date due to the Court’s calendar.  Moreover, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Plaintiff properly seeks to continue trial, now by noticed motion, instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date for the motions or Informal discovery Conference. 

 

Plaintiff establishes good cause for the continuance in light of the fact Plaintiff has identified specific discovery that is at issue between the parties, and Plaintiff relevant motions to compel cannot be heard prior to trial. 

 

Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The October 24, 2022 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The October 10, 2022 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cut-off dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

 

Dated this 19th day of September 2022

 

 

 

 

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court