Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV12629, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12629    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Thomas Collet and Cecelia Collet (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Fred Vahedi (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for September 30, 2022. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date to February 2023.  Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and Defendant filed a reply.   

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 despite diligent efforts, he has been unable to obtain essential testimony from crucial medical care providers that treated Thomas Collet (“Thomas”) after the subject accident.  Defendant provides that he has recently learned one of the medical providers has moved to Maryland, Dr. Ramachandra Tata, and the other provider, George Kalaw, is out of the country.  Further, Defendant provides that defense counsel may be unavailable for the current trial date due to the birth of defense counsel’s twin children. 

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue there is no good cause to continue the trial date because Defendant has now deposed George Kalaw and Dr. Tata’s is not as a crucial as a treater as Defendant contends.  Additionally, Plaintiff argues that keeping the trial date as scheduled will encourage settlement between the parties. 

Defendant, in reply, argues that Dr. Tat’s testimony is essential to Thomas’s claim he suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident.  Defendant further contends Plaintiffs have delayed in making their experts available for deposition and that the case is not near settlement.

The relevant factors weigh in favor of a continuance.  Defendant has identified specific testimony from Dr. Tata that may be directly relevant to Plaintiff’s injury claims that Defendant has not been able to obtain.  Furthermore, no prior trial continuances have been granted in this action, and a five-month continuance is reasonable to allow the parties to fully prepare for trial.  No alternative means are identified to address these issues, and Plaintiffs do not identify any prejudice they will suffer by the continuance.  Based on the foregoing, Defendant establishes good cause for the continuance. 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The September 30, 2022 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The September 16, 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 14^th day of September 2022