Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC02582, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.  **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 20STLC02582    Hearing Date: July 26, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Bruce Eddy Aguilar-Vidal, Christian Padilla

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

(CRC Rule 3.1332)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial Date and Reset Statutory Pretrial and Discovery Deadlines is GRANTED.  Trial is continued to DECEMBER 13, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Motion and discovery cut-off dates are to follow the new trial date.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of July 20, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of July 20, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff Paula Gabriela Mendoza-Belsuzarri (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Bruce Eddy Aguilar-Vidal and Christian Padilla (“Defendants”) for negligence (motor vehicle) stemming from an alleged motor vehicle accident on March 18, 2018.  On October 15, 2021, Defendants filed an Answer denying all allegations in the Complaint.

A Non-Jury Trial was initially set for September 14, 2021; however, it was subsequently vacated.  (9-14-21 Minute Order.)  Thereafter, a Non-Jury Trial was scheduled for August 15, 2022.  (11-18-21 Minute Order.)

On June 29, 2022, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial Date, containing a Stipulation by the parties.  No opposition has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (Ibid.)  Good cause includes the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness, party, or trial counsel; “the substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;” the addition of a new party; a party’s excused inability to obtain evidence; or a significant, unanticipated change in the case.  (Ibid.)

Furthermore, the Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:

“(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.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)

Here, Defendants state that they have good cause for seeking the continuance and request that the trial date be postponed “approximately six months until February 15, 2023” with “all discovery and motion cut-off dates” reflecting the new trial date.  (Mot. pp. 1-2.)  Defendants state that their insurance company, Access Insurance Company, was liquidated on March 13, 2018, and attach proof of liquidation.  (Mot. p. 8 Ex. A.)  As a result, the California Insurance Guarantee Association ("CIGA") “assumed certain statutorily limited duties to defendants as Access insureds” and needs time to assess whether “there is any other potential insurance coverage…available to the plaintiff.”  (Mot. p. 3.)  Defendants request a continuance to allow CIGA additional time to make this determination and to allow further discovery to be conducted.  (Ibid.)  Defendants also attach a Stipulation signed by the Plaintiff and Defendants agreeing to a trial continuance and the fact that no party will be prejudiced by a continuance.  (Mot. pp. 22-23, Ex. B ¶ 7.)  Instead, they claim that a continuance would serve the best interests of all parties because discovery would be completed, damages would be determined, and CIGA would make necessary assessments regarding insurance coverage.  (Mot. p. 4; Camerlengo Decl. ¶ 6.)  Finally, Defendants contend that this is the first request by the parties for a continuance.  (Mot. p. 23, Stipulation ¶ 3.)

The Court finds good cause exists to continue trial.  Although the liquidation of the insurance carrier is not an unanticipated change, given that it took place on March 13, 2018, the determination of whether insurance coverage is available is an important part of the case.  Furthermore, Defendants allege, and Plaintiff does not oppose, that further discovery needs to be conducted to determine the extent of damages and other information central to the case.  Since the discovery cutoff date is July 18, 2022, and the current trial date is August 15, 2022, parties will not have an opportunity to conduct discovery and develop the case without a continuance.  Parties have not sought continuances previously and given the statements in the Stipulation, there is no basis to assume that any of the parties would be prejudiced by a continuance.  Thus, having considered the various factors in determining whether trial should be continued, the Court finds that continuing trial will serve the interests of justice in this matter.

Defendants ask to continue the trial date to a new date six months from August 15, 2022, that is convenient for all parties and the court.  (Mot. p. 1; Camerlengo Decl. ¶ 2.)  To ensure the parties have sufficient time to complete all discovery and determine insurance coverage, Defendants’ request is GRANTED.  Trial is continued to DECEMBER 13, 2022.

III.            Conclusion & Order

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial Date and Reset Statutory Pretrial and Discovery Deadlines is GRANTED.  Trial is continued to DECEMBER 13, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Motion and discovery cut-off dates are to follow the new trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.