Judge Audra Mori, Case 21STCV26116 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Marcella Lentz-Pope (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Gillian Anderton, Bryan Anderton, and Phi-Phi Chang Anderton (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. Trial is currently set for January 12, 2023.

Defendants now move to continue the current trial date to July 12, 2023, or to a date thereafter. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendants 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, Defendants contend there is good cause to continue the trial date because despite diligent efforts, Defendants were only able to complete Plaintiff’s deposition on September 15, 2022, where Plaintiff testified she continues to experience ongoing pain to her neck, back, and wrist. Defendants assert that because of her ongoing complaints, Plaintiff agreed to submit to a physical examination on December 15, 2022, which is past the discovery cutoff date. Defendants argue that once the exam is completed, Defendants will require additional time to have their defense expert prepare corresponding reports and to conduct follow-up discovery. Further, Defendants provide that defendant Gillian Anderton (“Anderton”), who is an essential witness to the action, is a humanitarian missionary and is currently stationed in Thailand. Defendants provide that Anderton is expected to complete her mission and return to the United States in late December 2022, so she needs additional time to appear for her deposition and for trial. Defendants assert that there have not been any prior trial continuances.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that there is no good cause to continue the trial date because Plaintiff has offered to appear for a physical exam before the noticed December 15, 2022 date, and although Plaintiff noticed Anderton’s deposition for after the discovery cutoff, Plaintiff agreed to forego taking Anderton’s deposition to move forward with the trial date. Plaintiff argues that Defendants delayed in scheduling her physical exam[1] and could have chosen an expert with an earlier availability date. Alternatively, Plaintiff contends that if a continuance is granted, the trial date should only be continued 60 days.

Defendants, in reply, argue that December 15, 2022 was the earliest available date for the exam with their expert, and that because the exam is only four weeks before trial, Defendants require additional time to complete discovery. Defendants contend they will be prejudiced if they are not able to fully prepare for trial.

In weighing the relevant factors, Defendants establish good cause for a continuance. Defendants are making this motion more than one month before the trial date, and there have been no prior continuances in this matter. Indeed, the Court’s records show that defendants Bryan Anderton and Phi-Phi Chang Anderton filed their answer to the complaint little more than six months ago on May 17, 2022, and defendant Gillian Anderton filed her answer just over three months ago on August 16, 2022. Further, Defendants assert there are no alternative means now to address the issues with Plaintiff’s physical examination and Anderton’s trial availability. While Plaintiff contends she will be prejudiced because she has been preparing for the current trial date, Plaintiff does not provide evidence to show that this is sufficient prejudice to preclude continuance of the trial. Moreover, Defendants identify specific discovery they require additional time to obtain, and justice favors a trial on the merits. Defendants establish good cause for the continuance. The parties must expect no further continuances. They should plan all discovery and motion practice accordingly.

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted. The January 12, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The December 29, 2022 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31. All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Plaintiff argues that the parties had agreed to mediate, postponed the defense medical examination to occur after mediation, and then Defendants frustratingly reneged on the agreement to mediate.