Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV12158, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV12158    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -
CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.           
INTRODUCTION

On March 26, 2020, Julia Vandross (“Plaintiff”) commenced the present action by
filing a complaint against Lyft, Inc. (“Defendant Lyft”), Derran Williams (“Defendant Williams”), and
Does 1 through 25 (collectively “Defendants”) alleging negligence. The action
arises out of a car accident between Plaintiff and Defendant Williams that
occurred in Venice, CA in July, 2018.

On December 21,
2022, Defendants filed a motion for an order continuing the current trial date
of February 27, 2023 to September 27, 2023 or a date thereafter. Plaintiff
filed an opposition on January 5, 2023. Defendants filed a reply on January 11,
2023.

II.         
LEGAL STANDARD

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.) This is
true whether the continuance is contested, uncontested, or stipulated to by the
parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332).

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).)

On motion of any
party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have
a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to
reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.  This motion shall be accompanied by a meet
and confer declaration demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)  

The court shall
take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including,
but not limited to: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2)
the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the
hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not
completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier, (3) any
likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will
prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere
with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party, and (4) the
length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date
presently set, for the trial of the action.” 
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050,
subd. (b).)

III.       
DISCUSSION

          Defendants
move for an order continuing trial and all pre-trial related dates pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 128, subdivision(a)(3) and (a)(5), 187, and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332.

 Good Cause Exists to Continue Trial

          Defendants argue that good cause for granting a continuance exists
pursuant to rule 3.1332(c)(6) and (7). The Court agrees.

          As a result of the car accident,
Plaintiff suffered neck injuries at C3-C6. (Kramer Decl. para. 3.) Plaintiff
attempted other methods of treating the injuries but eventually underwent a
discectomy at C3-C6 on November 18, 2022 (Kramer Decl.
para. 4.)^[1] While taped to the operating
table during the procedure, Plaintiff suffered a tear in her labrum. (Kramer
Decl. para. 4.) It
is expected that the labrum tear will require shoulder surgery. (Kramer
Decl. para. 4.)
Defendants request a continuance in order to conduct discovery into the torn
labrum, including Plaintiff’s past medical history relating to her labrum.
(Motion, pg. 2, para. 5.)

          Defendants argue under rule
3.1332(c)(7) that Plaintiff’s
torn labrum constitutes a significant, unanticipated change in the status of
the case that renders the case unsuitable for trial at this time. Additionally,
Defendants argue that their discovery of Plaintiff’s new injury so near to
trial excuses their inability to obtain essential discovery under rule
3.1332(c)(6).  Defendants argue that they
would suffer prejudice were they not allowed to conduct discovery into whether
the shoulder injury actually relates to the neck surgery and if so, whether to
bring in additional cross-defendants.

          In opposition, Plaintiff argues that
Defendants fail to establish good cause for continuing trial. Plaintiff argues
that trial has already been continued twice by stipulation, contrary to
Defendants’
assertion that trial has been continued only once. (Opposition, pg. 1, lines
7-8.)^[2] Plaintiff also argues that
although a new injury resulted from the November, 2022 neck surgery, the
overall value of the case is in the multilevel cervical spine surgery that
Plaintiff had to undergo as a result of the accident. Therefore, Plaintiff
argues, trial should not be continued simply to allow Defendants to conduct research
into the shoulder injury, an ancillary injury. Additionally, Plaintiff contends
that Defendants have not engaged in any discovery in the past year and failed
to serve discovery even after learning of Plaintiff’s November neck surgery.^[3] According to Plaintiff, in
filing this motion, Defendants are attempting to conduct last minute discovery
they should have and could have conducted over the past three years. Lastly,
Plaintiff argues that she will suffer prejudice were this motion to be granted
because she is ready to go to trial and she will have to wait even longer for
her day in court.

          Plaintiff argues that good cause
cannot be based solely on Defendants’
assertion that certain discovery “might”
exist, or that there “may”
be certain persons that exist that the Defendant could depose. (Opposition, pg.
4, lines 17-18.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “have not alleged anything
specific they want to obtain in discovery, other than that necessary discovery
exists to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s damages claims.” (Opposition,
pg. 4, lines 24-25.) However, to the contrary, Defendants specifically and
clearly state in their Motion and Defendant Lyft reiterates in its reply that
Defendants are seeking discovery relating to the “new injury” Plaintiff
sustained while undergoing surgery on her C3-C6 on November 18, 2022.

          Plaintiff relies largely on Vanderbilt Growth Fund, Inc. v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
In Vanderbilt Growth Fund, Inc., petitioners were investment funds
alleging breach of contract and negligence against respondent, an accounting
firm. Vanderbilt Growth Fund, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
(App. 2 Dist. 1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 628. The Second District Court of Appeal
held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner’s
request for continuance where petitioners made no effort to discover evidence
on the issue of damages for more than three years and did not indicate what
additional evidence they expected to discover if continuance were granted. Id.
at 638. There, the complaint was filed in
July, 1976. Id. The order staying discovery was lifted in September,
1978. Id. Thereafter, the parties entered into a discovery schedule. Id.
Trial was not upcoming and a motion for summary adjudication was not filed
until November, 1979. Id.

            Here, the facts are wholly distinct from the set of
facts in Vanderbilt Growth Fund, Inc. Here, Defendants are requesting a
continuance specifically to discover information relating to the new injury
Plaintiff suffered on November 18, 2022 that she did not disclose to Defendants
until December 9, 2022. Moreover, trial is shortly upcoming, on February 27,
2023. That gives Defendants roughly two and half months from the filing of this
motion to obtain discovery on this new injury and how it may be connected to
Plaintiff’s surgery, and investigate whether to bring in new cross-defendants
who may be liable for the new injury, among other things. According to the
email exchanges between the parties attached to opposition, Plaintiff has not
turned over all of the medical information related to the November 18, 2022
surgery and the resulting shoulder injury. (Reply, pg. 2-3, lines 25-27 and
1-5.) Unlike in Vanderbilt Growth Fund, Inc., where there was more than
a year between when the protective order was lifted and respondent filed a
motion for summary adjudication, Defendants had almost no opportunity to
conduct this discovery on the shoulder injury.

          Accordingly, because Defendants have
roughly one month from the date of this hearing to conduct discovery on this
issue through no fault of their own, a continuance is necessary to ensure a
decision is reached on the merits of the case. Where the interest in efficient resolution of cases
runs into the interest in deciding cases on their merits, the strong public
policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy
favoring judicial efficiency. Hernandez at 1242. Here, those
circumstances have arisen. The interest in efficiently resolving Plaintiff’s
claim collides with the interest in allowing Defendants to conduct discovery on
important questions regarding damages. 

IV.        
CONCLUSION

Defendants’
Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Pre-Trial Dates is  therefore GRANTED. Trial is continued from
February 27, 2023 to _____________.

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 19^th day of
January 2023