Judge Audra Mori, Case 21STCV23073 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

This action arises out of an alleged motor vehicle collision. Karina Manukyan (Plaintiff) filed this action against Anna Alongi (Defendant), Mariah Michelle Hickerson, and Lorrie Hickerson on June 21, 2021, alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence.

Defendant served Plaintiff with set one of discovery on July 27, 2022, and responses were due on August 30, 2022. Plaintiff did not submit responses. On August 31, September 1, September 2, and November 8, 2022, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel further requests for responses and requests to meet and confer, which were left unanswered.

Defendant filed this motion to continue trial on November 14, 2022. Plaintiff did not file an opposition, and on November 30, 2022, Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition indicating she had not received an opposition to the motion. The motion is based on Defendant’s inability to obtain Plaintiff’s discovery responses. Defendant also notes for the Court that she filed timely motions to compel responses on October 27, 2022, which are set for hearing on May 1, 2023.

Rule of Court 3.1332 authorizes a trial continuance on an affirmative showing of good cause. Rule 3.1332(c)(6) states that “[c]ircumstances that may indicate good cause include . . . [a] party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent effort. . . .”

Pursuant to rule 3.1332(d), in ruling on an application or motion for continuance, the court must consider “[t]he proximity of the trial date; [w]hether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; . . . [t]he prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; . . . [w]hether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; [w]hether interests of justice are best served by a continuance; and [a]ny other relevant facts.”

Here, there is good cause to grant a continuance. Defendant served Plaintiff with requests for responses, which were left unanswered. (Leos Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant filed timely motions to compel discovery, which are set for hearing next year. (Leos Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) Trial is currently set for July 28, 2023, which is seven months away, but Defendant asserts that additional time will be required to complete discovery after the motions to compel are heard. Trial has already been delayed once upon stipulation, from December 19, 2022, to the current trial date. (Order and Stipulation to Continue Trial, filed on September 9, 2022.) Neither party will be prejudiced by the continuance, as both will have more time to prepare their cases. (Motion p. 6.) The parties did not stipulate to this continuance; however, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion to continue. (Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion to Continue Trial.) Balancing these factors, the Court finds that the interests of justice favor granting a continuance.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to continue trial dates is GRANTED. The July 28, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The July 14, 2023 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, as the parties have stipulated. Given the age of the case, the parties should expect no further continuances and must plan their discovery and motion practice accordingly.

· 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.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court