Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV32178, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32178    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Piedad Gutierrez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Corey Ray Strait (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for February 28, 2023. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date at least 90 days to allow  defense counsel, who received the case file in August, to become familiar with the facts and evidence in this case.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant 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, Defendant provides that the action was previously assigned to Terry S. Dall (“Dall”) at the Dall Law Firm, but after Dall’s wife was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, Dall was forced to prematurely retire from active practice.  The offices of Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar (“Ford”) associated as defense counsel in this matter on August 9, 2022, and received the file that month.  Defendant asserts that there have been no prior continuances in this action, and that additional time is necessary for Ford to come up to speed on the facts of the case and conduct any remaining discovery.  Further, Defendant’s new counsel provides it has been unable to establish contact with Defendant.    

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant does not establish good cause for the continuance.  Plaintiff correctly contends that although Ford associated into the matter on August 9, 2022, it waited over three months to bring this motion.  Further, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to file any declaration from Dall with the motion.

In reply, Defendant contends that Ford substituted into the case on December 27, 2022.  Additionally, Defendant asserts that due to defense counsel’s mistake and inadvertence, Dall’s declaration not to be filed with the moving papers, but Defendant states that Plaintiff was previously served with a copy of the declaration. 

The Court is sympathetic to Dall’s situation.  However, Defendant’s current counsel, Ford, has been associated as counsel in this matter since August 9, 2022, and Defendant was previously represented by Dall since answering the complaint.  Accordingly, Ford has had nearly five months to become familiar with the facts in this case and to move to continue the trial.  Nonetheless, in weighing the relevant factors, there is good cause for a short continuance.  Trial is almost two months away, and there have been no prior trial continuances in this action.  Further, Dall is unavailable to continuing representing Plaintiff in this action due to excusable circumstances, and Plaintiff does not identify any prejudice Plaintiff will suffer if the trial date is continued briefly.  Justice is served by a trial on the merits, and this continuances is granted to accomplish that.  However, defense counsel is put on notice that it must now act diligently, as continued lack of diligence does not constitute good cause for additional continuances of the trial.

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The February 28, 2023 trial date is continued to June 29, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The February 14, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to June 15, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.  The parties should expect no further continuances. 

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 5^th day of January 2023