Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 23SMCV00262, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00262    Hearing Date: October 23, 2024    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

BACKGROUND

This case arises from a dispute between neighbors.  Plaintiff owns the property located at 12618 Brooklake St. Los Angeles, CA. 90066 (“Plaintiff’s Property”).  (Compl. ¶1.)  Defendant Aileen Leitjen own the property located at 12612 Brooklake St. Los Angeles, California (“Defendant’s Property”).  (Id. ¶2.)  The properties are next to each another, separated by a wooden fence which ends at the east wall of Plaintiff’s garage.  (Id. ¶6.) 

Defendant’s Property has various plantings including bamboo and palm trees, which roots have grown into Plaintiff’s Property through the wooden fence and garage wall.  (Id. ¶8.)  The roots have burrowed through Plaintiff’s garage foundation and garage wall, causing severe water intrusion, vertical displacement, and cracks.  (Id. ¶¶ 8-10.)    

Additionally, Defendant had created an ADU in her original garage and installed an outdoor shower directly onto the southeast corner outer wall of Plaintiff’s garage. The shower was not outfitted with the proper drainage devices, and as a result, water runs down Plaintiff’s outer garage wall and saturates the ground along the bottom of the garage wall, contributing to further degradation of Plaintiff’s garage wall and stucco. (Id. ¶11.) 

In addition to the root encroachment, the canopy of the bamboo trees and palm tree extends well over the property line and overhangs Plaintiff’s Property and directly over the garage.  Leaves, branches, and other debris from the bamboo and palm trees fall onto Plaintiff’s Property, fowling the yard, clogging drainage equipment, and creating an unsightly condition which requires continuous maintenance by Plaintiff.  (Id. ¶14.) 

On several occasions, Plaintiff has asked Defendant to remove or reduce the bamboo trees and plants, but Defendant has declined to so, and Plaintiff’s more recent attempts to bring the matter to Defendants’ attention were rebuffed, resulting in this suit.  (Id. ¶15.) 

The operative complaint alleges five claims for (1) trespass, (2) negligence, (3) private nuisance, (4) interference with quiet enjoyment of real property and (5) declaratory relief. 

After the complaint was filed, Plaintiff had her home renovated by HGTV’s Property Brothers.  The garage was completely dismantled.  Defendant propounded discovery related to the renovations, to which Plaintiff objected, citing a non-disclosure agreement with the television production company.  Plaintiff indicated that she would provide discovery responses after the show aired on August 26, 2024, but Defendant claims no such responses have been provided. 

This hearing is on Defendant’s motion to continue trial and all trial-related dates.  The trial is currently scheduled for November 25, 2024.  Defendant seeks a trial continuance of “at least 180 days.”  Defendant argues that a continuance is necessary because of Plaintiff’s lack of cooperation in the discovery process; her refusal to pay for mediation, and her destruction of evidence.  The parties previously stipulated to a continuance, which the Court rejected based on mediation not being scheduled.  Defendant argues that she cannot schedule a mediation because Plaintiff will not agree to pay for one or consider a free mediation program. 

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 180 day continuance so that it may pursue discovery, because Defendant claims Plaintiff has not cooperated with discovery and indeed, has now destroyed the garage that is the subject of her complaint.  At the time of the destruction, Defendant’s expert had not yet inspected the foundation.  But the solution to Plaintiff’s alleged intransigence and destruction of evidence is a motion to compel, a motion for terminating or issue sanctions, or even a motion in limine for adverse inferences.  Defendant has not shown that the current trial date of November 25, 2024 precludes her from filing any of these motions.  Indeed, Defendant has filed a pending motion for issue or terminating sanctions.  Defendant’s claim that “[t]he only redress Defendant has is [a] trial continuance” is simply wrong.  Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for continuance. 

CONCLUSION

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 23, 2024                           ___________________________

                                                                                    Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court