Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV24052, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24052    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

On June 25, 2020, Plaintiff Shi Biao Hu (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Jorge Ochoa (“Defendant”) for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident.  The complaint alleges a single cause of action for motor vehicle negligence.  Trial is currently set for November 9, 2022. 

On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was heard and denied without prejudice.  The motion for leave to amend was procedurally defective and was being heard just over one month before then trial date of October 21, 2022.  (Min. Order, Sept. 16, 2022.)

At this time, Plaintiff moves for an order (1) continuing the current trial date, and (2) for the Court to reconsider the order denying Plaintiff’s previous motion for leave to amend.[1]  Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

2. Motion to Continue Trial and for Reconsideration

            a. Continue Trial

Plaintiff provides that Defendant was deposed on August 8, 2022, after Defendant’s deposition was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.  Plaintiff asserts that during his deposition, Defendant testified to facts that support additional intentional tort causes of action and punitive damages against Defendant.  Plaintiff, thus, seeks to continue the trial to allow Plaintiff to move to file a FAC.

In opposition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff does not establish good cause for a continuance.  Further, Defendant contends that Plaintiff also seemingly states that trial should not be continued in his motion. 

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 is correct that Plaintiff’s motion provides in part, “No continuance of the trial is requested.”  (Mot. at p. 7:9-10.)  However, Plaintiff’s notice of motion, memorandum of points and authorities, and proposed order make clear that Plaintiff is seeking to continue the trial date.  The Court therefore presumes that the above line was mistakenly included in the motion by Plaintiff.  Moreover, Plaintiff provides he is seeking to continue the trial date so that he may move for leave to file a FAC based on information obtained from Defendant during Defendant’s deposition on August 8, 2022.  While Defendant contends that Plaintiff delayed in deposing Defendant, Defendant does not identify any prejudice that Defendant will suffer if the trial date is continued.  Further, given that trial is set to commence two weeks after the hearing on this matter, there are no alternative means to address the issues concerning Plaintiff’s proposed FAC.  The parties will require additional time to conduct discovery on, or challenge, any new causes of action asserted by Plaintiff.  Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff establishes good cause for a continuance. 

Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The November 9, 2022 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The October 26, 2022 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are to be based on the new trial date.

            b. Reconsideration

Because Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s September 16, 2022 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a FAC without prejudice, CCP § 1008 applies.  CCP §1008 requires the Court to reconsider a prior ruling if it finds there are new or different facts, circumstances, or law than those before the Court at the time of the original ruling.  Once the Court determines the existence of new or different facts, circumstances, of law, it can either modify or affirm its prior decision.  (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 202.)

The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier.  (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 150.)  “[A] court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law.’”  (Id.)  The burden under § 1008 “is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.”  (New York Times Co. v. Sup.Ct. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.)  A party seeking reconsideration of a prior order based on “new or different facts, circumstances or law” must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to present the information at the first hearing; i.e., a showing of reasonable diligence.  (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.)  A motion for reconsideration was properly denied where based on evidence that could have been presented in connection with the original motion.  (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1460.)

Reconsideration cannot be granted based on claims the court misinterpreted the law in its initial ruling, as opposed to a change in the law in the interim; that is not a “new” or “different” matter.  (Gilberd v. AC Transit, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at 1500.)

In this case, Plaintiff is seemingly moving for reconsideration of the September 16, 2022 order based on the contention that Plaintiff’s motion for a trial continuance, which was filed on September 26, 2022, presents new facts.  (Mot. at p. 6:1-14.)  Plaintiff identifies no other purported new facts, circumstances, or law not previously before the Court when the prior order was issued. 

Plaintiff fails to cite any authority suggesting that a request to continue trial, which could have been made prior to Plaintiff’s previous motion for leave to amend being heard, can constitute new facts warranting reconsideration pursuant to CCP § 1008.  Plaintiff was aware of the relevant trial date when Plaintiff filed his previous motion for leave to amend, and Plaintiff offers no explanation for he could not have, with reasonable diligence, moved to continue the trial date prior to the motion being heard. 

Moreover, when the motion for leave to amend the complaint was denied, the order provided:

[A]s Defendant argues in opposition, Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with California

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. While Plaintiff moves to file the proposed FAC, which is not on a

Judicial Council form to allege new causes of action, Plaintiff does not state what allegations, if

any, are proposed to be deleted from the original complaint, and does not state whether all

allegations in the FAC are being added now for the first time. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel’s

declaration attached to the motion does not specify the effect of the amendment, why the

amendment is necessary and proper, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier,

given that Plaintiff was present at the time of the incident.

The motion for reconsideration does not address why this information could not have been presented in connection with the original motion.

            Rather than filing a new motion for leave to amend with new evidence, Plaintiff elected to move for reconsideration of the Court’s September 16, 2022 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a FAC without prejudice.  Thus, Plaintiff gave notice of a motion that must be judged by the standard of CCP § 1008.  Because Plaintiff has not met the standard in CCP § 1008, the motion for reconsideration is denied.  The Court reaffirms its order denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. 

As stated above regarding the prior motion for leave to amend the complaint, if and when Plaintiff files another motion for leave to file a FAC, Plaintiff should ensure the motion fully complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3,1324, including filing a separate declaration specifying (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  

Plaintiff 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 26^th day of October 2022