Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV21519, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21519    Hearing Date: November 7, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 28, 2021, Plaintiff Mehrangez Danishwar (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Randall Muenzberg (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for December 6, 2022. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date six months.  Plaintiff opposes 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’s medical examination has not yet been conducted, and that Defendant still does not have Plaintiff’s full medical records to review.  Further, Defendant provides that Plaintiff did not provide verified interrogatory responses and argues that all parties will be prejudiced if the trial date is not continued. 

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that she produced the most updated medical records and bills in her possession to Defendant on July 5, 2022, albeit the responses were not verified.  Plaintiff argues that Defendant delayed until September 28, 2022, to serve Plaintiff with a notice of a medical exam set for December 5, 2022, and then served a second notice for a medical exam on October 4, 2022, to which Plaintiff objected.  Plaintiff contends that Defendant fails to establish good cause for the continuance. 

In weighing the relevant factors in determining whether the trial date should be continued, the Court notes there have been no prior trial continuances in this matter.  Further, Plaintiff did not file proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant until March 9, 2022, and Defendant did not file his answer until March 30, 2022.  Defendant has identified specific discovery he has not obtained, and Plaintiff admits the written discovery responses she served on Defendant were unverified.  Moreover, Defendant is requesting only a continuance of approximately six months and is not waiting until the eve of trial to make the request.  Finally, Plaintiff does not identify any prejudice she will suffer if the motion is granted other than that inherit in the continuance itself.  Plaintiff argues that she will be prejudiced because she has retained experts and made sure they are available to testify at trial.  This is not prejudice that prevents trial from being continued; it is work that must be done in the normal course of a case.     

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The December 6, 2022 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The November 22, 2022 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are to be based on the new trial date.  The parties should expect no further continuances and should plan all motion and discovery accordingly. 

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 7^th day of November 2022