Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV26314, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26314    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: 28

Motion for Order to Continue Current Trial Date and All Related Dates and Deadlines

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposition papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

            On July 13, 2020, Plaintiffs Julian A. Martinez, Jr. (“Martinez”) and Juan Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Christopher Lynn Gipson (“Gipson”), Fella Boumat (“Fella”) and Philip N. Boumat (“Philip”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

            On November 21, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ request to continue trial from January 20, 2023 to March 10, 2023.

            On November 28, 2022, Plaintiffs moved to continue trial for at least two weeks because a key expert is unavailable from March 8, 2023 through March 24, 2023. No opposition was filed.

            Both parties stipulated to the trial continuance but Defendants reserve their right to oppose the date Plaintiff has requested as well as Plaintiff’s position that discovery deadlines should continue to relate to the current March 10, 2023 trial date.

PARTY’S REQUEST

            Plaintiff requests a court order continuing the March 10, 2023 trial date to March 24, 2023 or a date thereafter. Plaintiff also requests that all discovery deadlines remain related to the current March 10, 2023 trial date and do not shift in accordance with the new trial date.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.  All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.”  Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[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.”

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs seek a continuance of the March 10, 2023 trial date.  Plaintiffs argue that there is good cause to continue the trial date because Plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr. Andrew Fox, will be out of the country and unavailable from March 8, 2023 through March 24, 2023. (Motion, Michael Geragos Decl., para. 3). Dr. Fox had calendared June 13, 2022, September 15, 2022, and January 20, 2023 as trial dates for this action in accordance with previous trial dates. (Motion, Michael Geragos Decl., para. 4). Due to the Court granting a continuance of the January 20, 2023 trial date at Defendants’ request, Dr. Fox was not able to plan ahead to make himself available for the new trial date. Plaintiff contends that Dr. Fox’s testimony is essential because he is Plaintiff’s treating physician and his testimony relates directly to the treatment Plaintiff received, including a spinal cord stimulator. (Motion, Michael Geragos Decl., para. 5). Plaintiff argues that he would be prejudiced were the court not to allow his expert witness and treating physician to testify at trial. (Motion, Michael Geragos Decl., para. 9). Both parties have stipulated to the trial continuance. (Motion, Michael Geragos Decl., para. 7).

            The Court finds good cause to continue the trial. Plaintiff would be prejudiced were the trial to take place on a date on which Plaintiff’s expert witness and treating physician was unavailable. Additionally, Dr. Fox is unavailable through no fault of his own after the trial date was continued multiple times at the request of Defendants. Moreover, both parties have stipulated to the continuance. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to continue the trial date is granted.  Discovery and law and motion cut-offs remain tied to the March 10, 2023 trial date.  

CONCLUSION

            Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

            The Court orders trial continued from March 10, 2023 to March 30, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28. The Final Status Conference will be on March 16, 2023, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., in Department 28. Discovery cut-off and motion cut-off dates shall remain related to the March 10, 2023 cutoff date.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.