Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV31104, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31104    Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Winifred Wikkelling (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Sam To (“To”) and Lyft, Inc. for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for November 30, 2022. 

Defendant To now moves to continue the current trial date for approximately 90 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, To asserts that the parties are currently in the process of scheduling Plaintiff’s deposition, and that the parties are still actively engaged in completing discovery.  Furthermore, To’s lead trial counsel is currently set to being trial in another matter on November 30, 2022.  To avers that To would be unfairly prejudiced if To’s lead trial counsel is unavailable for the trial in this action.  To contends the interests of justice will best be served by a short continuance.

To relies heavily on Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (“Oliveros”) (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395, in arguing that counsel’s scheduled trial requires a continuance.  As To states, in that case,
“the County of Los Angeles’s (the “County”) attorney requested a continuance because he was engaged in trial in another matter. The trial court denied the continuance and the case proceeded to trial and judgment was entered against the County.”  (Memorandum of Points and Authorities at p. 4.)  Oliveros is distinguishable because, as it recognizes, a scheduled trial is not the same as being engaged in trial.  Indeed, because of the lack of trials that took place while people were asked to socially isolate due to COVID-19, many trial attorneys now have extremely busy trial calendars.  Sometimes it is necessary for them to schedule and prepare for overlapping trials with the understanding that they may ultimately be engaged one trial, requiring a continuance of another.  Courts often consider a continuance if counsel is actually engaged in another trial or has a firm trial date with priority at the time of the Final Status Conference.   

Nevertheless, the motion is unopposed, and Defendant To establishes good cause for a short continuance, as the parties have not completed discovery.  The continuance will also allow counsel to avoid the overlapping of scheduled trials. 

Defendant To’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The November 30, 2022 trial date is continued to May 5, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The November 16, 2022 Final Status Conference is continued to April 21, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cut-off dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

Moving Defendant 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 28^th day of September 2022