Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV11949, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11949    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Elizabeth Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Fred Vahedi (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle and general negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 22, 2019.  Trial is currently set for September 26, 2022. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date at least nine months.  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 Plaintiff has failed to respond to any of Defendant’s discovery requests, and that as a result, Defendant has three motions to compel discovery on calendar.  Defendant provides that due to the court’s full motion schedule, the court is unable to hear the motions until September 26, September 20, and October 24, 2022.  Defendant asserts that despite serving the discovery requests months ago and Plaintiff representing multiple times responses would be provided, no responses have been served.  The evidence shows that Defendant timely filed and served his pending discovery motions, but due to the court’s calendar, the motions cannot be heard prior to the current trial date.  Furthermore, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Defendant properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to advance or shorten the hearing time for the discovery motions.  Defendant, thus, establishes good cause for the continuance.   

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is unopposed and granted.  The September 26, 2022, trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The September 12, 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. 

Defendant is 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 9^th day of August 2022