Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV32690, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV32690 Hearing Date: January 18, 2023 Dept: 28
Defendant State of California’s Motion to Continue Trial
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff Aaron Michael Plocky (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants State of California (“State”), California Department of Transportation (“CDT”), County of Los Angeles (“County”) and Alan Hingkit Chan (“Chan”) for negligence and dangerous condition of public property.
On October 29, 2021, Chan and the State (on behalf of both the State and CDT) filed an answer. On October 29, 2021, the County filed an answer.
On July 18, 2022, the Court dismissed the County, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
On December 2, 2022, the State filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on January 18, 2023. On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On January 11, 2023, the State filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 2, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
The State requests the Court continue trial to September 7, 2023.
Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion.
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.” 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 State requests the Court continue trial as the State’s previous attorney transferred the case to other counsel in order to care for a sick family member; the case was reassigned in October 2022. Counsel’s schedule is relatively impacted, making discovery difficult to complete prior to the current trial date. Additionally, parties are interested in pursuing mediation. However, their mediator of choice will not be available until after the current trial date.
Plaintiff opposes the request on the basis that the State has not diligently attempted to complete discovery prior to the current trail date. Plaintiff notes that he has reached out to the State multiple times over the course of five months, beginning in June 2022, in order to schedule Plaintiff’s deposition, various IMEs and mediation. The State allegedly never responded to these requests.
The Court finds there is not good cause to grant the motion. Plaintiff attempted to facilitate discovery for months prior to and after the change in counsel—the State’s failure to coordinate or communicate in order to conduct discovery does not demonstrate a diligent attempt to complete discovery prior to trial. There is no excused inability to obtain discovery, and thus no good cause to continue trial. The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
Defendant State of California’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.