Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV22827, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22827    Hearing Date: June 5, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED.  Jury trial is advanced and continued to February 9, 2026 at 10 a.m., FSC is advanced and continued to January 29, 2026 at 8:30 a.m.  Cut-offs and deadlines are extended to run with new trial date.

            On 9/20/2023, Plaintiff Katelyn Arriola (Plaintiff) filed suit against Chipotle Mexican Grill, alleging: (1) disability discrimination; (2) sexual harassment; (3) failure to maintain a harassment and discrimination free environment; (4) retaliation; and (5) whistleblower retaliation.

            On 5/2/2025, Defendant moved to continue trial.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that good cause exists to continue trial. In support, Defendant argues:

-         Despite diligent efforts, Defendant was unable to take Plaintiff’s deposition for at least six months from September of 2024 through March of 2025. This delay was due to a death in Plaintiff’s family.

-         On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff served 42 Request for Admission, 87 requests for production of documents, and 50 special interrogatories on Defendant Chipotle Services, LLC. who was not a party to the action.

-         After amending the Complaint to add Chipotle Services, LLC. as DOE 1, Plaintiff insisted on discovery responses from the LLC before producing his client for deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel Stephen Love denied this at the April 15, 2025 status conference and claimed he had always made his client available for deposition. Defendant’s conversations with Plaintiff’s counsel, contemporaneous emails, notes, and exchanges between the parties indicate otherwise. As the evidence demonstrates, beginning in or around November of 2024, Plaintiff conditioned the deposition of his client on the receipt of written discovery responses from Chipotle Services, LLC.

-         A Post-Mediation Status Conference was held on January 14, 2025. Defense counsel informed the court that Plaintiff had insisted on beginning discovery anew and had just served discovery on Chipotle Services, LLC doing away with all prior discovery responses served by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.19 Counsel for Defendant informed the court that Defendant did not anticipate this matter would be ready for trial before the August 2025 trial date.

-         Chipotle Services, LLC. answered Plaintiff’s complaint on January 22, 2025 making its first appearance in this action. After sorting through multiple sets of outstanding and duplicate discovery requests, Defendant Chipotle Services, LLC. served verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests on February 18, 2025. (Braxton Decl., ¶19, Ex. N.) On April 10, 2025, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff ahead of the scheduled April 15, 2025 status conference to note among other things, “[…] we plan to notice Plaintiff’s deposition for June 30, 2025. Could you please confirm she is available on that date?” Plaintiff did not respond regarding the June 30th date or propose an alternative.

Pursuant to California Rule of Court No. 3.1332, good cause exists to continue the trial based on several factors including: (1) Plaintiff was initially unavailable for deposition due to a death in Plaintiff’s family; (2) a new party (Chipotle Services, LLC) was added to this action only four months ago at which time the prior, only named Defendant (Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.) was dismissed; and (3) Plaintiff’s counsel delayed litigation by conditioning the deposition of his client on receipt of discovery from the newly joined Defendant,. As a result of these factors, which together constitute “a significant unanticipated change in the status of the case,” the case is not ready for trial. (Id.)

Based on the facts set forth above, the Court finds good cause exists to continue trial.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  June    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.