Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV09739, Date: 2022-09-09 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: 19STCV09739    Hearing Date: September 9, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant OC Specialty Events Security, Inc.’s Motion to Continue Trial

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

BACKGROUND

On March 21, 2019, Plaintiff Mauricio Alaniz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Yard House, USA, Inc. (“Yard House”) and OC Specialty Events Security, Inc. (“OC”) for general negligence, intentional tort and premises liability.

On November 19, 2020, Yard House filed an answer.

On April 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed the FAC and added Defendant Angel Telles (“Telles”).

On June 28, 2021, OC filed an answer. On April 18, 2022, the Court dismissed Telles, without prejudice.

On August 15, 2022, OC filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on September 9, 2022. On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On September 1, 2022, OC filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for October 17, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

OC requests the Court continue trial to April 21, 2023.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion or continue trial to January 2023.

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

OC requests the Court continue trial on the basis that OC’s upcoming Motion to Compel IMEs are not set to be heard until October 12, 2022, which is after expert designation. OC attempted to have these motions heard ex parte, but were denied. OC has attempted to complete discovery in a timely fashion but routinely delayed motions to give Plaintiff time to respond and conduct necessary research.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion on the basis that OC had all information necessary to try to schedule the IMEs starting on February 11, 2022, but did not act diligently in pursuing this discovery. OC waited until June 14, 2022, to even suggest the additional IMEs to Plaintiff, months after being put on alert.

OC argues that it did not complete Plaintiff’s deposition until April 15, 2022, and waited to file the motions to compel IMEs to give Plaintiff time to conduct legal research. However, the Court notes that there is still a two-month delay between the completion of Plaintiff’s deposition and attempting to schedule the IMEs. While the Court will grant a short continuance, the Court does not find that the circumstances warrant a continuance of the length requested.

CONCLUSION

Defendant OC Specialty Events Security, Inc.’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to January 12, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is December 29, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. All discovery and related dates are set to trail 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.