Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 20STCV11374 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

On March 20, 2020, Plaintiffs Maya Ben Hayun and Ariel Ben-Loulu (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants PBC Leasing, LLC, and Saul V. Cabrera Hernandez (“Defendants”) alleging negligence arising out of a multi-vehicle motor vehicle collision on or around June 24, 2019. A new Plaintiff, Yosef Ben-Loulu, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) was added into this litigation through consolidation on February 28, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for February 1, 2023. On December 16, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for an order continuing the trial date to May 2023, with all deadlines to follow the new trial date. Defendant PBC filed an opposition on December 30, 2022. Plaintiffs filed a reply on January 9, 2023.

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) Continuances are thus generally disfavored. (See id. rule 3.1332(b).) Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates. (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.) Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at 1246.) 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

The court must also consider such relevant factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by 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. (Id., rule 3.1332(d).)

Plaintiffs contend that trial continuance from February 1, 2023 to May 2023 is necessary for the following reasons. First, PMQ discovery remains unfinished and it is foreseeable that future related motion practices will be required. (Declaration of Suarez ¶ 4.) Second, Plaintiffs’ counsel has a trial conflict. Plaintiffs’ counsel was scheduled to go to trial for a 6-day wrongful death case on October 31, 2022 but the Court gave preference to another matter, causing the trial to be continued. The agreed dates provided by the parties to the Court are January 30, 2023, and February 6, 2023. (Ibid.) Third, the parties agreed to and scheduled mediation to begin on October 25, 2022, but it was cancelled by Defendants and has not been rescheduled. (Ibid.)

In opposition, Defendants contends that (1) Defendants produced their PMQ for deposition on December 28, 2022, before the January 3, 2023 cut-off date; (2) Plaintiffs’ claim that additional motion practice will be necessary following PMQ is speculative; (4) there is no requirement that the parties attend mediation; and (5) Defendants have attempted to engage in settlement discussion but all requests have been ignored. (Declaration of Motooka ¶¶ 3-5.) Defendants requests that, in the event trial is continued because of Plaintiff’s counsel trial conflict, discovery remains closed except for a supplemental defense neuropsychiatric evaluation. Defendant’s request is based on (1) the defense neuropsychiatric examination on March 15, 2022 will be subject to impeachment if a continuance is granted as it will be over a year old by the time of trial; and (2) the report of another neuropsychiatric evaluation from sometime in 2022 has not been disclosed by Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs responded by contending primarily that (1) Plaintiffs require additional discovery and likely motion practice because of recently disclosed eyewitness; and (2) Defendants allege without support the need for Maya Ben Hayun to undergo another neuropsychiatric evaluation. (Declaration of Suarez ¶¶ 2,6; Exhibit “A”.)

While Defendant produced its PMQ for deposition on December 28, 2022, before the January 3, 2023 cut-off date, Defendants’ PMQ witness testified about a material eyewitness, a passenger in Defendants’ vehicle on the day of the car collision, who was not previously disclosed. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs fail to describe what motions will be necessary or would be necessary, but Plaintiffs state they will be moving to compel supplemental deposition responses from the PMQ for his refusal to answer certain questions.

The Court finds that there is good cause to continue trial because the PMQ witness’ disclosure of a material witness is a significant, unanticipated change, especially since Defendant produced its PMQ for deposition near the cut-off date. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c); Declaration of Suarez ¶ 2; Exhibit “A”.) The Court also finds that there is good cause to continue trial because of the unavailability of Plaintiffs’ counsel due to the continuance of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s 6-day wrongful death case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c); Declaration of Suarez ¶ 4.) In that case, the agreed dates provided by the parties to the Court are January 30, 2023, and February 6, 2023. (Ibid.) Trial in this case is currently scheduled for February 1, 2023.

In the event trial is continued, Defendant requests discovery remains closed except for an updated defense neuropsychiatric evaluation, but Defendants do not provide any authority for this. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for an order continuing the trial date and all related deadlines is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Trial is continued from February 1, 2023 to May 17, 2023 at 8:30 am in Department 27. The final status conference is continued from January 18, 2023 to May 10, 2023 at 8:30 am. Motion and discovery cut-off dates are to be based on the new trial date.

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.

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court