Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 22SMCV02190, Date: 2024-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02190    Hearing Date: December 20, 2024    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

BACKGROUND

This case arises from a landlord tenant dispute.  Plaintiff Kelsi Bohnen entered into a lease agreement with Defendant Essex Management Corporation (“EMC”) for property located at 4750 Lincoln Blvd, Unit #381, Marina Del Rey, California (the “Property”).  (Compl. ¶ 5.)  Defendant Essex Portfolio L.P. (“Essex”) is the owner of the Property, and EMC is Essex’s property manager.  (Id. ¶13.)    

Plaintiff claims she constantly complained to Defendants about inadequate plumbing, inadequate sanitation, dampness of habitable rooms, dilapidation and improper maintenance, nuisance, inadequate mechanical equipment, failure to maintain premises in a good and safe condition, and most significantly, mold exposure.  (Id. ¶16.)  Plaintiff alleges Defendants had actual and/or constructive notice of the defects but failed to take timely or reasonable steps to remedy the problems, all in an effort to save money and increase Defendants’ cash flow and net income.  (Id. ¶17.) 

The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) breach of contract/covenant of quiet enjoyment/warranty of habitability, (2) tortious breach of warranty of habitability, (3) negligence, (4) private nuisance, (5) violation of Cal. Civ. Code section 1950.5, (7) violation of unfair business practices, and (7) constructive eviction. 

This hearing is on Defendants’ motion to continue trial.  Defendants seek a four month continuance from January 21, 2025 to May 19, 2025.  Defendants claim a continuance is warranted because Plaintiff was only deposed on October 30, 2024 despite Defendants’ diligent attempts to timely complete her deposition for the last seven months.  And Plaintiff testified to additional damages that were not previously disclosed in her discovery responses.  Defendants require additional time to obtain discovery relating to these newly disclosed damages, including Plaintiff’s medical and employment records.  Defendants also argue that their trial counsel’s calendar is “extremely impacted” from January 2025 through May 2025 including eight trials in January 2025.  Plaintiff does not object to a trial continuance to May 19, 2025.   

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 Court concludes that a short two month continuance is warranted.  Defendants were not able to take Plaintiff’s deposition until October 30, 2024, despite diligent efforts to do so.  Defendants initially set Plaintiff’s deposition for January 9, 2024.  Plaintiff objected and provided dates in February.  (Ex. A to Solis Decl.)  Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for February 22, 2024, but on February 19, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed stating there was a calendar conflict.  (Exs. B, C, D to Solis Decl.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel then provided dates for April 2024.  (Ex. E to Solis Decl.)  Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for April 24, 2024.  (Ex. F to Solis Decl.)  On April 16, Defendants requested an extension to respond to discovery requests, and as a condition for granting the extension, Plaintiff asked for the April deposition to be moved.  (Ex. G to Solis Decl.)    

On June 11, defense counsel requested mutually agreeable dates for the deposition of Plaintiff.  Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond, so defense counsel unilaterally set the deposition of Plaintiff for July 11, 2024.  (Exs. I, J to Solis Decl.)  Plaintiff’s counsel objected to the deposition, and offered dates in August 2024.  (Ex. K L to Solis Decl.)  The same day, defense counsel served a new deposition notice for August 8, 2024.             (Ex. L to Solis Decl.) 

On August 8, Plaintiff’s counsel canceled the deposition because the handling attorney had the flu.  (Ex. M to Solis Decl.)  On August 20, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel for mutually convenient dates, and when counsel failed to respond, Defendants noticed the deposition for October 8, 2024.  (Exs. N, O, P to Solis Decl.)  Plaintiff’s counsel objected and provided October 30, 2024 as a mutually convenient date.  (Ex. Q to Solis Decl.)  Plaintiff’s deposition was finally taken on October 30, 2024.   

The moving papers represent that at her deposition, Plaintiff testified she received additional medical treatment and testing and also testified to working at additional companies which were not previously disclosed in her discovery responses.  Counsel’s declaration does not attest to this fact, nor does it attach the referenced discovery responses or deposition testimony. The declaration also does not specify what additional records are needed.  Notwithstanding, as Plaintiff has not opposed the motion to continue, the Court accepts these representations as true.

Based on these facts, the Court concludes that a short two month continuance is warranted for Defendants to obtain the additional records they seek.  Should this additional time prove insufficient, and if there is good cause, the parties may file another motion to continue.      

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to continue trial.  Trial is continued to March 24, 2025; the final status conference is scheduled for March 14, 2025, and all trial related dates are continued by two months.    

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 20, 2024                                              ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court