Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV42431, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV42431    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 26, 2019, Richard Harris (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed this action against Park La Brea, LLC, and Universal Protection Service, LP (erroneously sued as Allied Universal) (“Defendant”).  On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint.  Following the Court’s June 27, 2022 order sustaining Defendant’s demurrer in part, Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action are (1) assault, (2) battery, and (3) false imprisonment.

On August 29, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to continue trial and all related pre-trial dates deadlines because following several rounds of demurrers and amended pleadings, Defendant was left with three months to complete discovery before trial.  Pursuant to Defendant’s request, trial was rescheduled to May 19, 2023.  Trial date related deadlines and discovery motion cut-offs were set to the new trial date.

On August 25, 2022, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to continue trial in order to conduct Plaintiff’s IME and to participate in mediation and the mandatory settlement conference.  The Court continued trial to May 18, 2023.  All discovery and motion related timelines were set to the new trial date.

On February 14, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to continue the trial and all related pre-trial dates and deadlines for at least 180 days.

Plaintiff opposes.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 19, 2023. 

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b) outlines that “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.”

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c), the Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.”  The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks a trial continuance for at least 180 days because (1) Defendant has been unable to obtain Plaintiff’s verified responses to Defendant’s discovery requests, which has delayed Defendant’s ability to prepare for trial; (2) Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s verified discovery responses which is scheduled to be heard after the current trial date; and (3) Defendant has been unable to take Plaintiff’s deposition.  (Rivera Decl., ¶¶ 3-11.)  Based on the foregoing, Defendant argues that good cause exists for the requested trial continuance.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that there is no good cause supporting a trial continuance because Defendant has adopted a dilatory posture.  In support, Plaintiff submits email correspondence with defense counsel which details efforts to schedule Plaintiff’s deposition and to obtain Plaintiff’s medical reports and discovery responses.  Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the email correspondence does not show Defendant employed delay tactics.  And to the point, Plaintiff does not dispute he has yet to appear for deposition or to provide verified responses to Defendant’s discovery.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial.  Defendant is entitled to take Plaintiff’s deposition and to obtain Plaintiff’s verified discovery responses prior to trial.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Trial is continued from May 19, 2023 to December 1, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from May 5, 2023 to November 17, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27.  All discovery cut-off dates, all pretrial deadlines including discovery, expert, and motion cut-off dates are set to the new trial date of December 1, 2023.  

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

           Dated this 12th day of April 2023