Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV05058, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV05058 Hearing Date: July 25, 2022 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff(s), vs. RIVES GROGAN, ET AL., Defendant(s). | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. July 25, 2022 |
Plaintiff David Medina (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Rives Grogan, et al. for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. Trial is currently set for August 9, 2022.
Plaintiff now moves to continue the current trial date to March 10, 2023, or a date thereafter. The court has not received any opposition.
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, Plaintiff avers a continuance is necessary because defendants Rives Grogan and New Beginnings Christian Discipleship (collectively, “Defendants”) have failed to respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests. Plaintiff asserts that as a result, Plaintiff has filed motions to compel responses relating to the discovery, but the first available hearing date for the motions is September 1 and 2, 2022. Plaintiff further provides there have been no prior continuances in this matter, and that Plaintiff will be prejudiced if the trial date is not continued.
The motion is unopposed, and Plaintiff establishes good cause for the continuance given that Plaintiff’s motions to compel cannot be heard prior to the current trial date. Moreover, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Plaintiff properly seeks to continue the trial date instead of seeking to advance or shorten the time for the motions to compel to be heard.
Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial is granted. The August 9, 2022, trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The July 26, 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.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
Dated this 25th day of July 2022
| |
Hon. Audra Mori Judge of the Superior Court |