Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV11460, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11460    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

JOSE JUAN HERNANDEZ,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

EDWIN S. CAO CHEN, ET AL.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 21STCV11460

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

 

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

January 31, 2023

 

Plaintiff Jose Juan Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Edwin S. Cao Chen (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for June 20, 2023.

 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date to September 20, 2023.  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 the first available hearing date for his motion to reopen discovery, which Defendant filed on December 19, 2022, is June 28, 2023, after the current trial date.  Defendant provides that new counsel associated into the case for him in November 2023, and that review of the case has shown significant discovery needs to be conducted as liability remains disputed.  Defendant avers additional discovery is necessary to prepare for trial and evaluate Plaintiff’s claims.  There has been only one prior trial continuance in this matter, and Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.  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.  Therefore, 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 June 20, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The June 6, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All deadlines that are closed are to remain closed.  Only open deadlines are continued with the new trial date. 

 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

 

Dated this 31st day of January 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court