Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV13165, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV13165    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Yvonne Herpin (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants City of Long Beach (the “City”), Long Beach Police Department, and Gabriela Michelle Rodriguez for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for October 21, 2022. 

Defendant the City now moves to continue the current trial date to June 16, 2023.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and the City filed a reply.[1]

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, the City contends there is good cause to continue the trial date because the parties are meeting and conferring regarding a defense mental examination of Plaintiff.  The City attests that although the parties previously agreed to proceed with a mental exam following a June 1, 2022 mediation, there are several conditions the parties have not resolved that may require the Court’s intervention.  The City further provides that these meet and confer efforts were delayed due to defense counsel’s Covid-19 infection and recovery time.  The City avers that if the parties are unable to resolve the issues concerning the mental exam, the City will proceed with a motion to compel the mental exam with the next available date for such a hearing being in March 2023.  Additionally, the City asserts the parties have not completed various depositions, and the continuance will allow the parties to participate in a second mediation. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the City has known since August 30, 2021, that Plaintiff was treating with a psychologist, so the City has delayed in seeking the mental exam.  Further, Plaintiff contends that the issue the parties have not agreed to regarding the mental examination is that the City refuses to allow Plaintiff to record the exam as permitted by statute.  Plaintiff argues that the City does not establish good cause for the continuance because the City has created its own discovery issues. 

The City, in reply, argues it has demonstrated good cause for the continuance because the City will be prejudiced if it is unable to obtain essential discovery and testimony. 

Although Plaintiff contends that the City delayed in seeking Plaintiff’s mental exam, Plaintiff does not dispute placing his mental condition at issue.  And Plaintiff does not dispute that the parties have been meeting and conferring regarding the exam but have been unable to agree to the conditions concerning the exam.  Moreover, the Court notes that the City timely filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s mental exam on September 13, 2022, which is set for hearing on March 6, 2023.  The City avers this was the earliest available hearing date for the motion.  As the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, the City properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date.  Further, Plaintiff identifies no prejudice caused by the continuance.  Based on the foregoing, the City establishes good cause for the continuance. 

The City’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The October 21, 2022 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The October 7, 2022 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cut-off dates are to be based on the new trial date. 

Moving Defendant the City 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 30^th day of September 2022