Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV00183, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00183    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Merouj Babaian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Alexander Thomas Krashinsky, et al. for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for November 3, 2022. 

Defendants Alexander Thomas Krashinsky and ASC Protection, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) now move to continue the current trial date to March 3, 2023.  No opposition 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 contend that they require additional time to complete discovery, including written discovery, depositions of Plaintiff’s medical providers, and conducting Plaintiff’s physical examination.  Defendants further assert the parties require additional time to conduct a private mediation, which they would like to have.  Defendants provide the parties have stipulated to the continuance, and Defendants contend they will be prejudiced if they are not allowed time to complete discovery.  The motion is unopposed, and Defendants establish good cause for the continuance. 

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted.  The November 3, 2022 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The October 20, 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 29^th day of September 2022