Judge: Audra Mori, Case: BC722936, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC722936    Hearing Date: October 12, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Sonia Rodriguez Hurtado and Miguel Hurtado (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant City of Beverly Hills (“Defendant”) for damages arising out of a trip and fall involving a pothole in a city alley more than four years ago, on September 25, 2018.  Trial is currently set for October 27, 2022. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date to March 14, 2023. 

The Court notes that that the proof of service shows electronic service of the motion on Plaintiff on September 19, 2020.  Pursuant to CCP § 1005, all moving and supporting papers must be served and filed at least 16 court days prior to the hearing.  Additionally, “[a]ny period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days.”  (CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).)  Eighteen court days before this hearing would have been September 15, 2022.  Consequently, Defendant did not timely file and serve the motion.

Nonetheless, because Defendant indicates that Plaintiff has agreed to the requested continuance, if Plaintiff appears on October 12, 2022, and consents to going forward, the Court will rule on the motion as follows:

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 they are seeking a continuance primarily due to health concerns of Plaintiff’s and defense counsels’ spouses, as their spouses have ongoing medical conditions that make them vulnerable to Covid-19.  Defendant submits a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel stating that his spouse “suffers from a plethora of auto immune maladies,” (Mot. Zukor Decl. ¶ 4), and that defense counsel’s spouse has multiple sclerosis.  Defendant asserts that the continuance will further allow the parties time to continue settlement talks and complete expert depositions, which have not been taken as the parties are engaged in settlement discussions.  Defendant avers that no party will be prejudiced from the continuance.  The motion is unopposed, and Defendant establishes sufficient cause for the continuance. 

However, counsel are put on clear notice that given the age of this case, the parties should expect no further continuances.  There are ways to try a case that would minimize risk to counsel’s spouses.  In current times, cases have been tried remotely or with masks.  Prior to the Final Status Conference, counsel must meet and confer not only about settlement, including the possibility of alternative dispute resolution, but also about alternate means to try this case if they are unable or unwilling to do so in person.   

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  March 14, 2023, is not an available trial date currently.  The October 27, 2022 trial date is continued to April 25, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The October 13, 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 to be based on 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 12^th day of October 2022