Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV07411, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling



 
 
 
 
 


Case Number: 21STCV07411    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

RUDY MAURICIO BENAVIDES,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

LEILA DVALISHVILI, ET AL.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 21STCV07411

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

 

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 21, 2023

 

Plaintiff Rudy Mauricio Benavides (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Leila Dvalishvili (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for April 21, 2023. 

 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date.  No opposition to the motion has been filed.

 

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 Plaintiff delayed more than 11 months after filing this action before serving Defendant with the summons and complaint.  Defendant propounded written discovery on Plaintiff, but to date, Plaintiff has not served responses.  Defendant filed motions to compel responses on October 11, 2022, which are set to be heard on April 13, 2023, about one week before the current trial date.  Defendant argues that discovery has thus not been completed due to no fault of Defendant, and Defendant avers that additional time is required to obtain needed evidence.  There has only been one prior trial continuance in this matter.  The motion is unopposed, and Defendant establishes good cause for the continuance.  Moreover, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Defendant properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date for Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the discovery. 

 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The April 21, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The April 7, 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. 

 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

 

Dated this 18th day of November 2022

 

 

 

 

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court