Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV19932, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19932    Hearing Date: August 2, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Jimmy Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Hajime Harry Matsutani and Flint Ink North America (collectively, “Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for trial for August 29, 2022. 

Defendants now move to continue the current trial date for at least 60 days.  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 aver a continuance is necessary because Defendants did not become aware that Plaintiff claimed that he suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident, and that Plaintiff allegedly received treatment for a brain injury, until they received Plaintiff’s discovery responses on March 15, 2022.  Defendants provide they have recently subpoenaed records from Plaintiff’s healthcare providers to investigate these claims.  Furthermore, Defendants provide they have retained a separate neurologist and neuropsychologist as expert witnesses to conduct medical examinations, which have been scheduled for July 13 and 27, 2022, respectively.  Defendants provide that all parties have stipulated to the continuance and that no prejudice will result to any party.  (Mot. Exh. G.)  Defendants establish good cause for the continuance, given the additional time required to evaluate Plaintiff’s claims.  Defendants similarly establish sufficient cause to reopen discovery that has closed. 

Defendants’ motion to continue trial and all related deadlines is granted.  The August 29, 2022, trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The August 15, 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. 

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 2^nd day of August 2022