Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is a trip and fall case.  Plaintiff Daniel Vasquez Jones alleges that he tripped and fell after existing a LYFT car when he was headed towards his apartment.  He claims that he fell on a pothole on the street located at 1021 North Harper Avenue in West Hollywood.   

Plaintiff sued Defendant the City of West Hollywood (the “City”).  The operative complaint alleges two claims for (1) premises liability and (2) dangerous condition of a public property.     

This hearing is on the City’s motion to continue trial by at least six months from September 23, 2024 to sometime in 2025.  This would be the first continuance in the case.  The City argues that its counsel is unavailable for trial on September 23, 2024 because he has another case scheduled for trial on September 10, 2024 which is a 5 year statute matter that cannot be continued.  The City also argues the parties have only just started written discovery, which will require motion practice.  In addition, the parties have not yet taken any depositions, and the City will need to conduct an independent medical examination (“IME”) of Plaintiff.  Plaintiff does not oppose the continuance.                  

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, 115 Cal.App.4th at 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 continuance is not warranted.  Trial counsel for the City maintains he will not be available for trial on September 23, 2024 as he has another trial on September 10, 2024 that cannot be continued.  But the City never specifies the length of the other trial, or that the trial is expected to last until well after September 23, 2024.   

The City also argues the parties require time to complete discovery.  They have just commenced written discovery, and it is anticipated that discovery motions are likely necessary.  The depositions of Plaintiff and the “persons most knowledgeable” for the City have not yet been taken.  And the City anticipates scheduling an IME of the Plaintiff.    

But Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on December 14, 2022, and the City was served on January 3, 2023.  Plaintiff filed his First Amended complaint on March 10, 2023, and the City filed its answer on April 7, 2023.  On April 7, 2023, the City filed its cross-complaint against LADWP, and the LADWP filed its answer on June 6, 2023.  Given this procedural history, there is no explanation why the parties have only just began written discovery and have not taken a single deposition.   

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance.   

DATED:   March 20, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court