Judge Jill Feeney, Case 19STCV46474 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 19STCV46474, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV46474 Hearing Date: October 6, 2022 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

October 6, 2022

19STCV46474

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Plaintiff Iraj Yazdanpanah

DECISION

The motion is denied.

Background

On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff Iraj Yazdanpanah (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint alleging a cause of action for negligence against Defendant Diane Merrick (“Defendant”). This action arises out of an alleged motor vehicle collision between Plaintiff and Defendant.

Trial in the case is scheduled for today, October 6, 2022.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to continue trial on September 13, 2022.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Plaintiff argues good cause exists for a trial continuance because Plaintiff is scheduled to undergo additional medical treatment. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants will be prejudiced if they cannot obtain Plaintiff’s medical records related to his new treatment.

Opposing Arguments

Defendant argues that the motion should be denied because the request was already denied earlier in an ex parte motion. Defendant previously agreed to a continuance, but contends that there is no basis for reopening discovery.

Reply Arguments

None.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” 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. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth more factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay 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 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.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Counsel Hess Panah submits a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s request for a continuance of the trial date. This is the only declaration provided.

Plaintiff’s Counsel states: “This declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial so he may continue treatments caused by this incident. Specifically, Plaintiff was recommended for a Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation by his neurologist. This treatment will continue over a span of three months.” (Panah Declaration at Paragraph 2.)

Plaintiff requests a continuance of six months to allow Plaintiff to complete treatment and provide those records to Defendant. (Panah Declaration Paragraph 7.)

Based on the information provided, the Court cannot ascertain whether Plaintiff has actually started the TMS treatment at issue. Based on the information provided, the Court cannot ascertain whether Plaintiff needs the TMS treatment in order to meaningful participate in the trial. If either of these situations exist, Counsel for Plaintiff should alert the Court. In that instance, the Court will grant a short continuance to enable Plaintiff to complete the treatment. All discovery and motions would be closed.

The current trial date here was set on March 18, 2022. At that time, the parties were told not to anticipate any further continuances. (3/18/22 Court Order.)

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the trial date. In that application, Plaintiff stated that he and Defendant would need additional time to conduct discovery about Plaintiff’s further anticipated treatments, including TMS which Plaintiff was scheduled to undergo. The accompanying declaration of Counsel Hess Panah stated that “Plaintiff just discovered that he will be undergoing further treatment, specifically transcranial magnetic stimulation.” (Panah Declaration at Paragraph 2.)

The ex parte was denied without prejudice to filing a properly noticed motion to continue trial. (9/1/22 Court Order).

On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed another ex parte application to continue the trial date. The ex parte repeated the same information. The ex parte was opposed. The Court denied the ex parte but advanced the motion to continue hearing date to the date of trial.

Plaintiff does not explain in this motion or in any other filings: (1) the date when any medical professional first recommended that Plaintiff undergo TMS; (2) the date when that information was provided to Defendant; (3) whether Plaintiff is actually in TMS treatment or if not, what are the scheduled dates of treatment and (4) why discovery should be reopened (given that Defendant has indicated that Defendant does not want a delay).

Essentially, Plaintiff has not provided any facts from which the Court may conclude that there has been a significant, unanticipated change in the case or that Plaintiff has been unable to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.

For these reasons, the motion is denied.