Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV03425, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03425    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

IRVIN RUVALCABA,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

HEATHER ANNE NAVARRO OGANA, ET AL.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 21STCV03425

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

 

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

August 9, 2022

 

Plaintiff Irvin Ruvalcaba (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Heather Anne Navarro Ogana (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for February 7, 2023. 

 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date to January 26, 2024, or a date thereafter.  The court has not received any opposition to the 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 asserts that while Plaintiff filed this action on January 28, 2021, Plaintiff did not effect service of the summons and complaint on Defendant until more than fifteen months later on May 7, 2022.  Defendant then filed her answer and first appeared in this matter on June 15, 2022.  Defendant avers that because of Plaintiff’s delay in serving Defendant, Defendant requires additional time to conduct written discovery, depose Plaintiff, subpoena Plaintiff’s medical records, have Plaintiff undergo a physical examination with Defendant’s expert, and to complete expert discovery.  Defendant asserts she cannot complete this discovery before the current trial date.  Further, Defendant provides there has only been one prior trial continuance in this action.  The motion is unopposed, and Defendant establishes good cause for the continuance in light of the fact Defendant was served with the summons and complaint after significant time had passed in this matter. 

 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The February 7, 2023, trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The January 24, 2023, 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. 

 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

 

Dated this 9th day of August 2022

 

 

 

 

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court