Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV04953, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 19STCV04953    Hearing Date: October 19, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Murray Abba Zelmanovitz’s Motion to Continue Trial

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On February 15, 2019, Plaintiff Norman Phineas Ivory (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Murray Abba Zelmanovitz (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence.

On May 28, 2019, Defendant filed an answer.

On September 16, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on October 19, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for December 12, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court either specially set the upcoming discovery motions or issue an order continuing the trial date.

LEGAL STANDARD

CRC rule 3.1332(b) outlines that “a party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

Under CRC 3.1332(c), The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts,” or the unavailability of a party, counsel, or expert due to death, illness or other excusable circumstance. The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. CRC 3.1332(d).

DISCUSSION

Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery on June 22, 2022, with a due date of July 26, 2022. After Defendant attempted and failed to meet and confer to receive responses, Defendant filed motions to compel discovery. The first available dates for these motions were December 15, 2022, and December 16, 2022, both of which are after the December 12^th trial date. Even if the Court specially set the upcoming hearings, accounting for proper notice, time to provide responses, and time to prepare for trial assuming that Plaintiff serves responses, there would be insufficient time to complete the discovery process prior to trial. The Court grants a continuance. However, Defendant did not advise the length of the continuance requested. The Court orders parties to appear for the hearing on this motion in order to set a new trial date.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Murray Abba Zelmanovitz’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. Parties are ordered to appear for the hearing on the motion to determine the new trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.