Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV23462, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23462    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

GUSTAVO PALMA,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

KCS WEST INC., ET AL.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 21STCV23462

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

 

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

September 13, 2022

 

Plaintiff Gustavo Palma (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants KCS West Inc. and D.F. Perez Construction, Inc. for injuries Plaintiff sustained while working at a construction project.  Plaintiff has filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Nehemiah Rebar Services, Inc. as Doe 1.  Trial is currently set for December 21, 2022. 

 

Defendant Nehemiah Rebar Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) now moves to continue the current trial date at least six months.  No opposition has been received.    

 

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 it was only recently served with the summons and complaint by Plaintiff, and that as a result, Defendant only filed its answer on May 17, 2022.  Defendant contends that it has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial.  Defendant asserts it is still waiting for responses to written discovery served on Plaintiff, is awaiting Plaintiff’s medical records that have been subpoenaed, and must make arrangements with the other parties for Plaintiff to be deposed and appear for his medical examination.  Defendant provides there have been no prior trial continuances in this matter, and that the other defendants have stipulated to the continuance.  The motion is unopposed, and Defendant establishes good cause for the continuance. 

 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The December 21, 2022 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The December 7, 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. 

 

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

 

Dated this 13th day of September 2022

 

 

 

 

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court