Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV47389, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47389    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant State of California’s Motion to Continue Trial

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

BACKGROUND

On December 10, 2020, Plaintiffs Renaldo Orozco (“Renaldo”), Rosalia Del Carmen Orozco (“Rosalia”), Sheiffer Melissa Palacios Lopez (“Sheiffer”), and Brandon Ali Palacios Lopez (“Brandon”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), State of California (“State”), and Benjamin Martinez Orozco (“Benjamin”) for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and government code section 815.2(a) and 820(a). 

On December 13, 2021, the County filed its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. Bejamin filed his answer on January 19, 2022. 

On March 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the FAC.

On April 5, 2022, Benjamin filed an answer. On April 12, 2022, the County filed an answer. On October 25, 2022, the Court dismissed Renaldo and Rosalia with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On December 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the SAC, changing the government code cause of action to dangerous condition of public property.

On December 28, 2022, the State filed an answer. On December 28, 2022, the County filed an answer. On January 3, 2023, Benjamin filed an answer.

On February 21, 2023, the State filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on March 15, 2023.

Trial is scheduled for June 1, 2023.  

PARTY’S REQUESTS

The State requests the Court continue trial to February 2024.

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

The Court sustained the State’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s original complaint on March 1, 2022; Plaintiffs filed a FAC on March 1, 2022. The FAC contained numerous issues, including issues the Court has previously identified in sustaining the demurrer. Parties met and conferred on the issue, eventually resulting in two Plaintiffs being dismissed and Plaintiffs filing a SAC in December of 2022. Given the substantial delay in the filing and serving of a proper complaint, the Court finds good cause to grant the motion. Parties need more time to complete discovery, given the substantial delay in filing the proper pleadings.

Additionally, the Court notes that the County has reserved, filed and served a MSJ for October 18, 2023. The Court’s continuance is also based on allowing this timely-served MSJ to be heard prior to the trial date.

CONCLUSION

Defendant State of California’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to February 1, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is January 18, 2024, 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.