Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00174, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY.Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 22BBCV00174    Hearing Date: April 28, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations in 22BBCV00174

Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) alleges that it provided insurance coverage to its insured, Melissa Minney, for damages and losses sustained to her residential property located at 745 North Reese Place, Burbank, CA.  Plaintiffs alleges that a tree located in front of the property fell onto the property on October 26, 2020.  Plaintiff alleges that it made payments to its insured in excess of $100,000 and is now subrogated to the rights of its insured to this extent as against Defendant City of Burbank (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant inspected, maintained, owned, and exercised dominion and control over the subject trial at all relevant times.

The complaint, filed March 21, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) dangerous condition of public property (Gov’t Code, § 835); and (2) inverse condemnation (Cal. Const. Art. I, § 19).

This action was consolidated with 22BBCV00319, John Minney, et al. v. City of Burbank and was deemed the lead case.  On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed with prejudice the complaint and all causes of action filed by Plaintiff in 22BBCV00174 (lead case). 

B.     Motions on Calendar

On April 6, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to continue the trial and all related dates, including discovery cutoff.  On April 17, 2023, Plaintiffs Josh and Melissa Minney filed an opposition brief.  On April 21, 2023, Defendant filed a reply brief.

On March 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) and for $10,268,90 in sanctions.  On April 17, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition brief.  On April 18, 2023, Defendant filed an untimely separate statement in support of the opposition brief.  On April 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION RE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

            Defendant moves to continue the trial date and all related dates in order to accommodate a motion for summary adjudication and to complete discovery. 

            The jury trial is currently set for June 5, 2023.  Defendant seeks a continuance of the trial to September 25, 2023 or a date convenient for the Court.

“Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”  (In re Marriage of Falcone and Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)  A trial court has broad discretion with regard to denying a request for a trial continuance.  (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)  CRC, Rule 3.1332 provides guidance and factors for the Court to apply in making a determination on whether to grant a motion to continue trial.

            Defendant argues that good cause exists pursuant to CRC, Rule 3.1332 because: (1) the City Attorney’s Office recently associated Burke, Williams & Sorenson LLP as co-counsel for this case and new counsel needs time to get familiar with the case and engage in additional settlement negotiations or trial; (2) Defendant is engaging in the discovery process, recently propounded written discovery on Plaintiff, and still needs to conduct discovery on Plaintiff’s experts (including Plaintiff’s new damage theory articulated in November 2022 about the reduction of sales prices); (3) the parties have not yet noticed any party, non-party, and/or expert depositions; and (4) the earliest date Defendant could obtain for its motion for summary adjudication was August 25, 2023, which Defendant believes can resolve the inverse condemnation claim.  Defendant argues that there have been no prior continuances, extensions of times, or other delays by the parties, and that it only seeks a 3-month continuance.  Thus, it argues that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the short delay. 

            In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant is attempting to waive away the Rules of Court’s admonishment that trial dates are firm and argues that trial dates are what make the cases move along in the Court’s docket.  Plaintiffs argue that continuing the trial would increase legal expenses. 

            The Court finds that there is merit to granting this motion to continue the trial date.  First, the Court is dark on the scheduled trial date, and it would need to be postponed in any event. In addition, and pursuant to CRC, Rule 3.1332, the Court finds that Defendant has shown good cause for granting a continuance.  Although the Court appreciates Plaintiffs’ concern for the Rules of Court, the Court also acknowledges the reality of the delays in a lawsuit, such as the association or substitution of counsel and the process of discovery, both of which are common in the normal course of litigation.  This is the first continuance requested by any of the parties in this action and the continuance is modest at only 3 months.  Thus, it is unlikely that any parties would be prejudiced by the continuance. 

As such, the motion to continue the trial date is granted.

DISCUSSION RE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

            Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s further responses to SROG Nos. 11-18 and 20

            SROG No. 11 asks whether Defendant contends that there are currently fewer than 15 London Plane trees located in the parkway on both sides of North Reese Place on the block from West Chandler Boulevard to the north to Magnolia Boulevard to the south and, if so, to state all facts related to this contention.  Defendant objected that the SROG was vague, unduly burdensome, and harassing, the information was equally available to Plaintiffs, and was irrelevant.  Plaintiffs seek a further response, arguing that they seek to determine whether the tree that fell and the other London Plane trees on their block constituted a “work of public improvement” for purposes of the inverse condemnation cause of action and was one in a series of trees of the same species.  The Court does not find that the SROG is vague as it clearly states the type of trees Plaintiffs are inquiring about and the parameters in terms of the location.  Further, while the information about the number of trees may be equally available to Plaintiffs, it appears that they seek this information from Defendant based on its records so that they can establish their theory on the inverse condemnation cause of action.  Finally, the SROG seeks relevant information as it appears that the subject tree that fell was a London Plane tree.  Information about the same trees that were placed by Defendant on the street may be relevant or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Thus, the objections are overruled.  The motion is granted as to SROG No. 11. 

            SROG Nos. 12 and 13 ask whether Defendant contends that it did not plant (12) any or (13) all of the London Plane trees in the parkways on both sides of North Reese Place on the block from West Chandler Boulevard to the north to Magnolia Boulevard to the south and, if so, to state all facts that relate to the contention.  SROG No. 14 asks Defendant to identify (by the address of the property adjacent to the tree and approximate trunk diameter) all London Plant trees that Defendant planted on this particular block.  Defendant similarly objected on the grounds that the SROGs were vague, unduly burdensome, harassing, and irrelevant.  For the same reasons as above, the Court overrules the objections.  Further, whether Defendant planted or did not plant the subject tree (and similar trees on the street) is relevant to this action.  Thus, the motion is granted as to SROG Nos. 12-14.

            SROG No. 15 asks whether Defendant contends that the purpose of planting the London Plane trees in the parkways on this particular block was not to beautify the roadway and, if so, to state all facts related to the contention.  SROG No. 17 asks whether Defendant contends that the London Plane trees located in the parkways on the entire block do not serve a public purpose and, if so, to state all facts related to the contention.  SROG No. 18 asks what Defendant contends was the purpose of the planting of the London Plane trees in the parkways on the block.  Defendant objected on the grounds that the SROG was vague, unduly burdensome, harassing, and irrelevant.  Defendant also objected that the SROGs called for speculation and expert opinion.  Again, the SROGs seek information relevant to Plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claim.  Also, it is unclear why this SROGs would call for speculation or expert opinion when it is asking about the underlying purpose for Defendant planting the trees in the first place.  As such, the motion is granted as to SROG Nos. 15, 17, and 18.

            SROG No. 16 asks whether Defendant contends that the London Plane trees’ beatification of the entire block does not serve a public purpose and, if so, to state all facts related to the contention.  Defendant objected on the grounds that the SROG was vague, unduly burdensome, harassing, and irrelevant.  Again, the Court overrules the objections to the SROG and will order Defendant to respond.  The motion is granted as to SROG No. 16. 

            SROG No. 20 asks whether Defendant contends that it has never removed London Plane trees located on the entire block that have become diseased and, if so, to state all facts related to this contention.  Defendant objected on the grounds that the SROG was vague, unduly burdensome, harassing, and irrelevant, as well as on the ground that this information is equally available to Plaintiff.  However, the SROG is relevant to the action as it may indicate whether other trees in the area were part of the same purported “work of public improvement” and if other trees of the same species fell (i.e., from disease or any other reason) and whether the trees were cared for or otherwise maintained.  Further, it is unclear how the information in this SROG would be equally available to Plaintiffs as the question asks whether Defendant removed these trees over the years and for what reasons.  Thus, the objections are overruled and the motion is granted as to SROG No. 20. 

            Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $10,268.90 (= 7.5 hours for the meet and confer letter, 6.8 hours to prepare the motion, 6 hours to prepare a reply, 3.5 hours to attend the hearing at $420/hour; $60 in filing fees; and $34.45 mileage charge for a roundtrip drive to the courthouse).  Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied.  CCP § 2023.040 requires that the party requesting sanctions “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought,” and Plaintiffs’ notice of motion asks only for sanctions against Defendant but not against defense counsel.  Plaintiffs have failed to provide the Court with facts to support a conclusion that the insufficient responses were the fault of Defendant only, and because Plaintiffs did not properly request sanctions against defense counsel under CCP § 2023.040, Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied.  Further, the Court finds that a sanctions request of $10,268.90 for a motion to compel further responses as to 9 interrogatories is excessive; thus, even if the Court were to award sanctions, the sanctions amount would have been heavily reduced. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant City of Burbank’s motion to continue the trial date is granted. Trial is continued from Jun 5, 2023 to September 25, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. in this department.  The Final Status Conference is continued to September 14, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in this department.  All discovery, motion, and expert cut-off dates will be tied to the new trial date.

            Plaintiffs Josh and Melissa Minney’s motion to compel Defendant City of Burbank’s further responses to the Special Interrogatories is granted.  Defendant is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of notice of this order.  The request for sanctions is denied.  No sanctions shall be awarded.

            Each party shall provide notice of their respective order.