Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 21STCV20810 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

On June 4, 2021, Maurice Belle (“Plaintiff”) commenced the present action by filing a Complaint against his former employer, Urban Alchemy (“Defendant”). Plaintiff’s Complaint is premised upon the allegation that Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiff on the basis of his medical disability (i.e., high blood pressure and shoulder, leg, and knee injury), and that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff appropriate wages and provide meal and rest breaks in accordance with the Labor Code. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) Failure to Pay Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Wages Due Upon Termination; (4) Failure to Issue Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (5) Retaliation (Labor Code § 98.6); (6) Retaliation (Fair Employment and Housing Act); (7) Disability Discrimination; (8) Disability Discrimination—Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation; (9) Disability Discrimination—Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (10) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation; (11) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (12) Failure to Reimburse Required Business Expenses; (13) Private Attorney General Act; and (14) Unlawful/Unfair Business Practice.

On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff’s action was assigned a trial date of October 24, 2022.

On September 1, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Continue Trial. Subsequently, on September 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial. Thereafter, on September 20, 2022, Defendant filed a Reply. Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial is now before the Court for hearing.

Preliminarily, the Court observes Defendant’s present Motion to Continue Trial includes a request to effectively reopen the discovery deadline enumerated within Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a) [“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day . . . before the date initially set for trial in this action.”].) Presently, the deadline to complete discovery in the instant action expired on approximately September 24, 2022 (thirty (30) days before the current trial date of October 24, 2022 is September 24, 2022). (Ibid.) As Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial comes before the Court on September 28, 2022, approximately four (4) days beyond the discovery deadline, Defendant essentially requests that this Court reopen the discovery deadline enumerated within Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a), and permit a continuance of the deadline in congruence with the new trial date.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (a), a motion “to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set . . . shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) Here, upon review of the supporting Declaration of Nicole Meredith, Esq., the Court observes the supporting Declaration includes no averments, whatsoever, as to any meet and confer efforts with respect to reopening the discovery deadline. (Meredith Decl., ¶¶ 2-15, Ex. B [email correspondence between counsel only discusses continuing the trial date, and does not discuss continuance of the discovery deadline].) Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has failed to proffer sufficient evidence demonstrating counsel appropriately met and conferred with respect to reopening the discovery deadline, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (a). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) In the interest of comprehensiveness, the Court exercise discretion to consider the substance of Defendant’s Motion.

Defendant moves for an Order continuing the current trial date of October 24, 2022 by six (6) months to sometime in the month of “April 2023 or thereafter.” (Mot., at p. 5:6-7.) Additionally, Defendant moves for an Order continuing discovery and pre-trial deadlines to coincide with the new trial date. (Id., at p. 5:7-9.)

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. (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 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. (Cal. Rules of Court., Rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)

Presently, Defendant’s requests a six (6) month continuance for the purposes of completing discovery and conducting a mediation. Defendant represents the remaining, outstanding discovery is limited to obtaining medical records in response to subpoenas served upon Plaintiff’s medical providers in the State of Louisiana. Defendant has not identified any other remaining discovery which must be completed prior to trial in this action. Ultimately, upon review of the parties’ moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court concludes Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated good cause supports the present request for a continuance.

Further, the Court is of the opinion that the discovery deadline should be reopened in this matter for the purposes of permitting Defendant’s completion of discovery. While Plaintiff argues “[t]here is no good cause to reopen discovery and other motion cutoffs” in this action, Plaintiff, at the same time, “agrees to leave discovery open only as to take defendant’s supervisor and employee depositions and expert discovery.” (Opp., at p. 2:14-16.) In other words, Plaintiff appears to argue that the discovery deadline should be reopened only as to the discovery which Plaintiff needs to complete (i.e., “defendant’s supervisor and employee depositions”), however the deadline should remain closed with respect to Defendant’s needed discovery. (Ibid.) Such an argument is wholly contradictory and unfair. As both parties concede discovery is outstanding, the Court finds good cause to reopen the discovery deadline and continue the deadline along with the new trial date.

Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED; trial in this matter is advanced and continued to April 17, 2023 at 9:30 am and the Final Status Conference is continued to April 3, 2023 at 8:30 am. Discovery is re-opened and all pre-trial dates, including the discovery cut-off, are vacated and re-set based upon the new trial date.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court