Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV38636, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38636    Hearing Date: February 23, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Joseph Glyzewski (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Stephen R. Dixon, individually and as Trustee of Stephen R. Dixon Trust, (“Defendant”) for injuries Plaintiff sustained while working on Defendant’s property.  Plaintiff alleges that he was working on Defendant’s property to repair air conditioners located on the roof, and that as Plaintiff walked down a ladder to the floor below, a door hatch slammed shut on Plaintiff’s head and body.  Trial is currently set for April 19, 2023. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date for at least 270 days.  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 asserts that Defendant learned through discovery that Plaintiff was involved in a subsequent motorcycle accident, which Plaintiff initially failed to disclose, but that Plaintiff has not produced all relevant information concerning the accident.  Defendant further states that not all of the medical records that Defendant subpoenaed have been produced, so Defendant has not been able to adequately prepare for trial.  Additionally, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s third set of discovery were deficient, so Defendant has reserved an Informal Discovery Conference and scheduled a motion to compel further responses for May 3, 2023.  Lastly, Defendant asserts that Defendant scheduled a motion for summary judgment for hearing on April 5, 2023, which was the first available hearing date but is within 30 days of the trial date.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he has provided his subsequent motorcycle accident records, and that Defendant’s late motion for summary judgment is meritless.  Plaintiff contends that there is no good cause to continue the trial date and that Defendant is attempting to delay the trial.  Plaintiff asserts that Defendant had more than six months to take expert depositions and to file a motion for summary judgment, but Defendant did not do so due to his own fault. 

In reply, Defendant again argues that Plaintiff failed to disclose important information regarding Plaintiff’s motorcycle accident, and Defendant asserts that it did not delay in defending this action. 

Concerning Defendant’s motion for summary, the Court’s records show that Defendant filed and served the motion for summary judgment on January 20, 2023.  Based on the current trial date, Defendant was required to file and serve the motion for summary judgment by or before January 4, 2023.  Plaintiff is thus correct that Defendant did not timely file the summary judgment motion.  Nonetheless, the relevant factors weigh in favor of granting a trial continuance.  A discovery dispute exists concerning information related to the motorcycle accident that Plaintiff did not initially disclose.  Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to written discovery is set for May 3, 2023, after the current trial date.  As the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Defendant properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date for its motion to compel further or the related Informal Discovery Conference.  Further, there have been no prior trial continuances in this matter, and Defendant is making this motion nearly two months before the hearing date, as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial to request a continuance.  There are no alternative means identified to address the identified discovery issues, and Plaintiff does not articulate any prejudice he will suffer if the trial is continued. 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  However, there is not good cause articulated for why the continuance must be at least 270 days.  The April 19, 2023 trial date is continued to the next available date to which trials are normally being set, which is October 18, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The April 5, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to October 4, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

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 23^rd day of February 2023