Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV15292, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15292    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Ernestina Espinoza (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC (“Defendant”) for damages arising from Plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall in Defendant’s property.  Trial is currently set for October 20, 2022. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date to March 19, 2023, or a date convenient for the parties and the Court.  Plaintiff opposes 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 contends Plaintiff’s recent deposition has uncovered previously unknown evidence, and that the parties require additional time to be ready for trial, including because of the need to retain and depose experts, and that Defendant will need to conduct a defense medical examination, and complete other trial preparation.  Further, Defendant asserts that the parties have agreed to mediation, but before the mediation can be held, Defendant must delve into the newly discovered information concerning Plaintiff’s medical condition.  Defendant contends that no party will be prejudiced by the continuance, and that this is the first request for a continuance in this matter. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the case should move forward on the currently scheduled trial date.  Plaintiff argues that Defendant has consistently delayed in this action, and that no new information was discovered at Plaintiff’s deposition.  Plaintiff contends that while she testified at her deposition that she may require additional treatment, this is not new information.  Plaintiff asserts that all written discovery is completed, and that Defendant fails to establish good cause to continue the trial date. 

In reply, Defendant avers that Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she was scheduled for a post-surgical lumbar MRI the day after her deposition, and that the MRI is extremely relevant to Defendant’s evaluation of the case.  Defendant asserts that it issued a subpoena to the imaging facility on March 10, 2021, but the subpoena is still in progress.  Further, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant for the first time on May 24, 2022, that Plaintiff intended to move forward with a second back surgery.  Defendant asserts that it is, thus, seeking to be prepared to resolve the matter in mediation without simultaneously preparing the case for trial. 

While the parties dispute who is responsible for any alleged delays, the evidence shows that the Summons and Complaint were served less than a year ago.  The parties have participated in discovery, including a recent defense medical examination, and the parties have agreed to mediate the case.  Furthermore, there have been no prior trial continuances, and Plaintiff does not identify or substantiate prejudice that would result from a continuance.  The Court, thus, finds good cause to grant a short continuance to allow the parties to participate in mediation prior to preparing for trial. 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The October 20, 2022, trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The October 6, 2020, 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.  The parties are asked to meet and confer within seven days about scheduling the mediation.

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 26^th day of August 2022