Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant City of Beverly Hills  

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jonathan Raiman and Niloufa Raiman 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises out of a landslide that caused damage to the home of Plaintiffs Jonathan Raiman and Niloufa Raiman.  The landslide was caused by a break in the water service line located at the uphill property of Defendants and Cross-Complainants Nazilla Levy as Trustee of the N.Y. Levy Grantor Trust, the NS Yamin Trust and the S. Yamin Grantor Trust.  The broken water line caused a slope failure with water and debris flowing downhill into the Plaintiffs’ backyard.   

Plaintiffs sued the City of Beverly Hills (“the City”) and the uphill property owners on the theory that one or both are responsible for the water line break and resulting slope failure.  Plaintiffs filed their complaint on January 14, 2022 and a First Amended Complaint on May 18, 2022.  The operative complaint alleged claims for inverse condemnation, dangerous condition of public property, nuisance, negligence and trespass. 

The uphill property owners then cross-complained against the City alleging that the City’s actions and/or inactions caused the water service line to fail.  The operative cross-complaint was filed on August 8, 2022 and alleged claims for equitable indemnity, contribution, declaratory relief, nuisance, negligence, trespass and inverse condemnation.       

This hearing is on the City’s motion to continue trial.  Trial is currently set for July 24, 2023.  The City seeks an eight and a half month continuance until April 1, 2024 to allow time for a mediation and additional discovery.  A mediation is currently scheduled for May 30, 2023.  Plaintiffs do not oppose a continuance but argue the continuance should only be till late October or early November 2023.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).)  Continuances are thus generally disfavored.  (See id., rule 3.1332, subd. (b).)  Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates.  (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.)  Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.)   

Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) the addition of a new party if (A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or (B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case; (6) a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c).)  

The court must also consider such relevant factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) if the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) the court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (d).) 

 

DISCUSSION 

The City argues that an eight and a half month continuance to April 1, 2024 is warranted to allow the parties’ time to mediate their dispute and to conduct additional discovery.  The Court agrees that a short continuance to December 11, 2023 is warranted.   

Mediation is currently scheduled for May 30, 2023, which will be over six months before the newly continued trial date, allowing the parties sufficient time to prepare for trial in the event mediation were to fail.  Further, a four and a half month continuance is sufficient to allow the additional discovery the City claims is necessary, including the taking of depositions and expert discovery, which the parties should have in any event been actively pursuing since the filing of the Complaint and Cross-Complaint.  If for any reason the parties are unable to complete their discovery despite diligent efforts to do so or should the parties require more time for a second mediation, then the parties and the Court may always revisit continuing the trial date into 2024.   

The City seeks more time, arguing that the Cross-Complaint was filed only eight months ago, in August 2022.  But the City does not explain how the Cross-Complaint is materially different from the Complaint filed over sixteen months ago in January 2022, which also alleges that the City is at fault for the landslide.   

The City’s claim that it needs more time to obtain historical documents (from as early as the 1960s) to determine information about the water line break is also too vague to justify a further extension.  The City does not specify what documents it has been seeking; its efforts to date in attempting to secure the documents, and what matters outside its control have stymied its attempts to obtain the relevant records.           

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the City of Beverly Hills’ motion to continue trial.  Trial is continued to December 11, 2023, with the final status conference to be held on December 1, 2023.      

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: April 27, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court