Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV37119, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV37119    Hearing Date: February 9, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On September 9, 2020, Plaintiff Angelica Cabello (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant De Q. He (“He”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident vs. pedestrian accident.  Pursuant to a stipulation and order to allow Intervenor Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“Intervenor”) to file an answer-in-intervention on behalf of He, Intervenor filed an answer-in-intervention to Plaintiff’s complaint on December 7, 2021.  Trial is currently set for March 10, 2023. 

Intervenor now moves to continue the current trial date to November 23, 2023.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Intervenor 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, Intervenor contends that it needs additional time to complete discovery because of Plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal to produce vital and relevant records relating to Plaintiff’s counsel’s representation of Plaintiff for a subsequent incident.  Intervenor asserts that as a result, it has filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s counsel’s compliance with the deposition subpoena, which Intervenor set for the first available hearing date of July 31, 2023, more than four months after the current trial date.  Intervenor argues that it is likely that the responsive records to be produced will lead to further necessary discovery.  Additionally, Intervenor contends that it requires more time to conduct Plaintiff’s neuropsychological examination, for which Plaintiff has not appeared. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Intervenor fails to show good cause for the requested continuance because Intervenor delayed in seeking to obtain the relevant discovery as Intervenor has been in possession of discovery concerning Plaintiff’s subsequent incident and neurological complaints since early 2022.  Plaintiff argues that the continuance will prejudice her. 

In reply, Intervenor contends there is good cause for the continuance because any delay in this action is the fault of Plaintiff, and because Plaintiff’s conduct has prevented Intervenor from completing discovery.  Intervenor argues that its need to complete discovery and the lack of availability of hearing dates for its motion to compel compliance constitutes good cause to continue the trial date. 

The relevant factors weigh in favor of a continuance.  There has only been one prior trial continuance in this action, and Intervenor is seeking to continue the trial one month before the current trial date, as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial.  Moreover, Intervenor timely filed and served its motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena, but Intervenor’s inability to have the motion heard is due to the Court’s calendar.  As the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Intervenor properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date for the motion to compel compliance.  There are no alternative means identified to address this issue, and Plaintiff does not articulate any manner in which a continuance will prejudice her.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.  Nevertheless, given the age of this case, the parties must expect no further continuances.  They must plan all motion and discovery practice accordingly. 

Intervenor’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The March 10, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The February 24, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

Intervenor 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 9^th day of February 2023