Judge: Audra Mori, Case: BC701229, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC701229    Hearing Date: October 6, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Astgik Dermanchyan (“Dermanchyan”) and ARA Abarlan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Angela Adelman, M.D. (“Adelman”), Jose Aranez, M.D., and Tejas Patel, M.D. (“Patel”) for medical malpractice.  Trial is currently set for November 3, 2022. 

Defendant Patel now moves to continue the current trial date to April 24, 2023, or a date thereafter.  Patel provides that all parties stipulate to the continuance. 

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, Patel asserts that despite diligent efforts, the parties have been unable to complete written discovery and depositions in order to prepare for trial.  Further, Patel provides that the parties require additional time to explore all areas of resolution, including mediation.  Patel submits a signed stipulation by all parties agreeing to the continuance.  (Mot. Exh. A.)  In addition, on September 29, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a declaration stating that Plaintiffs and defendant Adelman have agreed to mediate the case with Joseph E. Thielen, Esq., but the earliest available dates are not until after the current trial date.  Plaintiff Dermanchyan further submits a declaration stating that Dermanchyan underwent kidney transplant surgery on April 23, 2019, and is concerned about being in public buildings during the cold and flu season due to being immunocompromised.

The motion is unopposed, and the parties establish good cause for the continuance.  However, according to Patel, “[W]ith this case filed on April 6, 2018, the deadline for Plaintiffs to bring this case to trial is October 6, 2023.”  If any party contests that the deadline to bring the matter to trial has been extended at least to October 6, 2023, they must appear at the hearing and voice their objection.  Given the age of this case, there will be no further continuances.  The parties must plan all discovery and motion practice accordingly. 

Patel’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The November 3, 2022 trial date is continued to April 25, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The October 20, 2022 Final Status Conference is continued to April 11, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cut-off dates are continued to reflect the new trial date as stipulated by the parties. 

Moving 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 6^th day of October 2022