Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV24207, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24207    Hearing Date: August 11, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs, Barry F. Stone, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of Kamryn Stone, and Kristie Campbell-Stone (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant, Rose Bowl Operating Company (“RBOC”), ABM Industries Incorporated, Don Wayne Davenport (“Davenport”), and Kyonne Gardner (“Gardner”) for damages related to the alleged wrongful death of Decedent, Kamryn Stone (“Decedent”).  Plaintiff has filed a Request for Dismissal dismissing ABM Industries Incorporated, and thereafter filed an Amendment to Complaint naming ABM Industry Groups, LLC (“ABM”) as Doe 1.  The complaint alleges Decedent was at the Rose Bowl stadium on September 14, 2019, in the course and scope of his employment, when he was fatally attacked after a football game at the stadium.  Trial is currently set for December 28, 2022. 

Defendant ABM has filed a joint motion to continue the trial date providing that ABM, RBOC, and Plaintiffs are seeking to continue the trial date to at least June 28, 2023.  The court has not received any opposition to 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, ABM contends there is good cause to continue the trial date because the parties have not been able to complete discovery due to the pending criminal trial of defendant Gardner, as the Pasadena Police Department has refused to respond to any subpoenas pending the ongoing criminal matter.  ABM further asserts Gardner and Davenport have not yet been served with the complaint, so the parties have not yet conducted any discovery as to Gardner or Davenport, whom ABM avers participated in the fatal attack.  Moreover, ABM contends that at the time of the incident, Decedent Kamryn Stone was acting as an agent and employee of a Cyndy’s Cleaning Service, and ABM intends to seek leave to file a cross-complaint against Cyndy’s Cleaning Service, but the first available hearing date for a motion for leave to file the cross-complaint is December 23, 2022. 

ABM, RBOC and Plaintiffs agree to the continuance.  Furthermore, ABM establishes good cause for the continuance given that the parties have not completed discovery, and ABM has filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint to add a new party to the action. 

The joint motion to continue trial is granted.  The December 28, 2022, trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The December 14, 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 ABM 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 11^th day of August 2022