Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 20STCV29802, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29802    Hearing Date: December 15, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Julie Boyer and Gigi Gaston (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action alleging that equestrian trainer Jimmy Williams abused them when they were juvenile members of Flintridge Riding Club (“Flintridge”). As a result, Plaintiffs allege they have suffered mentally and emotionally as children and have continued to suffer severe emotional distress since.

Plaintiffs have reached a settlement with the other defendants in this matter and Flintridge is the only defendant remaining. The matter is currently set for jury trial on February 12, 2024.

Flintridge now moves to continue the trial to May 13, 2024. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

ANALYSIS: 

Legal Standard

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only 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. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c)(1)-(7).)

Other factors to consider include: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to 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; (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. (CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)

Merits

This matter is currently set for trial on February 16, 2024. Flintridge asks that the trial be continued to May 13, 2024 so that additional settlement discussions may take place. Flintridge states that it is currently working with the judge who mediated the case to reach settlement with Plaintiff. (Silver Decl. ¶ 7.) Flintridge also states additional time is needed to take the deposition of its most knowledgeable person (“PMK”), which did not go forward as scheduled on November 20, 2023. (Silver Decl. ¶ 8.) Flintridge states further meet and confer is required to determine who the PMK is and to re-notice the deposition. (Id.) The parties have already stipulated to continue Flintridge’s motion for summary judgment in light of the need for this deposition. (Id.) Flintridge states this deposition has not occurred as of yet due to some mutual miscommunication between the parties. (Silver Decl. ¶ 9.)

Plaintiffs oppose continuing the trial, arguing that good cause has not been shown by Flintridge. Plaintiffs argue that there remains ample time before trial to take the deposition of Flintridge’s PMK. Plaintiff states the deposition of Flintridge’s PMK is currently slated to be completed before January 4, 2023, giving Flintridge ample time to prepare for trial. (Malloch Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff argues that Flintridge’s counsel substituting into the case sometime in July of 2023 should have no bearing on the decision to continue the trial.

The Court notes that trial has already been continued twice at this point. The case was originally set for trial on July 26, 2022 and was continued upon a joint motion to January 27, 2023. (Malloch Decl. ¶ 7.) The trial was continued further to February 13, 2024 after a partially successful mediation. (Malloch Decl. ¶ 9.)

Given the previous continuances, the age of the case, and the impact to the Court’s existing trials the Court is disinclined to move the trial further. Moving the trial would result in a case that is not as old being bumped for trial.   The Court currently has a caseload of over 1,300 cases, and has limited trial availability until 2025.  The only remaining discovery matter appears to be the deposition of Flintridge’s PMK. Flintridge presents no reason this deposition cannot take place within a timely matter before trial. Nor does Flintridge offer why the deposition of its PMK has a crucial impact on its trial preparation. It is clear from the submissions of the parties that the lion share of impactful discovery has been conducted. Further, Flintridge’s counsel substituted in July of 2023. While the Court understands that this litigation has been ongoing for 1224 days at this point, the fact remains that Flintridge’s new counsel has had the better part of half a year to prepare for trial and it does not appear they were working from scratch. On balance, the Court finds the factors weigh against a trial continuance in this matter. As such, the motion to continue trial is DENIED.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Flintridge Riding Club’s Motion to Continue Trial came on regularly for hearing on December 15, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  December 15, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles