Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV07222, Date: 2022-09-27 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: 19STCV07222    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Diane Marie Villar’s Motion to Continue Trial

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

BACKGROUND

On February 28, 2019, Plaintiff Raffaele Macchia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Raiser, LLC (“Raiser”) and Raiser-CA, LLC (“Raiser-CA”), Raiser-DC, LLC (“Raiser-DC”), Raiser-PA (“Raiser-PA”), Shakeh Barseghian (“Barseghian”) and Diane Marie Villar (“Villar”) for motor vehicle negligence, negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, negligent undertaking, negligent retention, negligent supervisions and negligent training and negligence per se.

On March 25, 2019, Barseghian filed an answer. On April 26, 2019, Villar filed an answer. On May 13, 2019, Uber filed an answer.

On August 25, 2020, the Court granted Barseghian’s Motion for Summary Judgment. On September 4, 2020, the Court dismissed Uber, Raiser, Raiser-CA, Raiser-DC and Raiser-PA, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On August 24, 2022, Villar filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on September 27, 2022. On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for October 19, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Villar requests the Court continue trial 90 days from December 7, 2022.

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

Villar currently has two motions to compel pending against Plaintiff, set to be heard less than three weeks prior to the current trial date. These motions, which are for a second deposition and a second medical exam, will require additional time to be enforced should the Court grant the motions.

Plaintiff argues that there is no way to know either of these motions will be granted. However, the Court does not need to litigate the merits of the upcoming motions here. Instead, the Court reviews whether there was an excused inability to obtain essential discovery despite diligent efforts. Villar has provided no evidence to support that diligent efforts were made to obtain this discovery in a timely fashion; as Plaintiff articulates, Villar’s counsel apparently prematurely left Plaintiff’s deposition, created the need for the second deposition. That does not reflect diligent efforts. Villar filed an exparte to compel the second deposition which was denied on July 13, but did not file the subject motions until August 23/24, over a month later. Villar had plenty of time to attempt to have these motions filed faster but failed to do so. The Court does not find good cause and denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Diane Marie Villar’s Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED.

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.