Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from a car accident.  Plaintiff Dean Lopata alleges Defendant Lionel Simon negligently caused a car accident at the intersection of 19th Street and Arizona Avenue, in Santa Monica causing Plaintiff to sustain bodily injuries and property damage.  The operative complaint alleges two claims for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.   

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 8, 2022.  Defendant filed his Answer on February 6, 2023.  Trial is set for January 27, 2025. Written discovery has been exchanged and Plaintiff has produced 349 pages of medical and medical billing records, as well as imaging studies.  (Pennell Decl. 2.) Plaintiff’s deposition was taken on October 16, 2023, and Defendant’s deposition was taken on August 14, 2023. Plaintiff attended his Defense Medical Exam on October 21, 2024. (Pennell Decl. ¶ 3.)  Both parties will exchange their expert designations on December 9, 2024, and complete all expert depositions well before the late January trial date.  (Pennell Decl. ¶ 4.)  Assuming both parties continue to cooperate in good faith, all pre-trial discovery, expert discovery, and trial preparation will be completed before January 27, 2025.  (Pennell Decl. ¶ 5.)  

This hearing is on Defendant’s motion to continue trial from January 27, 2025 to June 27, 2025 and all trial-related dates.  Defendant argues good cause exists to continue the trial because (1) counsel only recently substituted into this case on September 19, 2024 and needs time to bring themselves up to speed; (2) outstanding discovery needs to be completed prior to trial including an independent medical examination of Plaintiff, the deposition and medical records of Plaintiff’s medical providers, the depositions and records of investigating police officers and defendant’s deposition, and other non-expert witnesses identified by Plaintiff in his discovery responses who witnessed the accident; (3) the parties have not had an opportunity to attend mediation or engage in informal settlement discussions with new counsel, and (4) lead trial counsel (David Shapiro) is currently and will be actively engaged in trial in other matters and second counsel (Domineh Fazel) is unavailable on a pre-planned vacation from December 18, 2024 through January 2, 2024.   

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 

Defendant requests a five-month continuance so that its new counsel may get up to speed on the case and conduct needed expert and fact discovery.  As the case involves a simple car accident, it is baffling why counsel (particularly one as competent as Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP) would require an additional five months to get up to speed on the case.   

Also, Plaintiff disputes that time is needed for additional discovery.  Plaintiff claims to have produced medical and medical billing records, as well as imaging studies.  Plaintiff’s deposition was taken on October 16, 2023, and Defendant’s deposition was taken on August 14, 2023. Plaintiff attended his Defense Medical Exam on October 21, 2024. (Pennell Decl. ¶ 3.)  Both parties will exchange their expert designations on December 9, 2024, and complete all expert depositions well before the late January trial date.  (Pennell Decl. ¶ 4.)  Assuming both parties continue to cooperate in good faith, all pre-trial discovery, expert discovery, and trial preparation will be completed before January 27, 2025.  (Pennell Decl. ¶ 5.)   

Counsel’s other trial and vacation plans are also not a basis for continuance.  It is unclear why counsel accepted a case with a trial date that conflicts with his or her other existing work or family commitments.  Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP is also a law firm with 1,552 attorneys, any one of whom could take over for Ms. Fazel.   

As to the prospect that the case may be settled with mediation or informal settlement discussions, those can surely happen in the time between now and the trial.  Indeed, it is more likely that the parties will settle with the prospect of a looming trial than if the Court were to continue trial for six months.  

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to continue trial and all trial-related dates.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED:  November 8, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court