Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV16876, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16876    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On May 4, 2020, plaintiffs Julieta Yesayan and Anahit Hayrapetyan (“Hayrapetyan”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against defendant Hovhannes Khachatryan (“Defendant”) arising out of a September 14, 2019 motor vehicle collision.

On September 28, 2021, the Court granted the parties’ Stipulation to Continue Trial, Final Status Conference and Related Motion/Discovery Dates.  Pursuant to the Stipulation, the Court continued the Final Status Conference to April 21, 2023, the non-jury trial was continued to May 5, 2023, and all discovery and expert dates were set to the new trial date.

On February 14, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to continue the trial date and all related dates.  Defendant seeks to file a motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena which is scheduled for June 16, 2023. 

No opposition has been filed.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 5, 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 because Defendant has filed a motion compelling the custodian of records for Allstar Imaging (“Allstar”) to comply with a deposition subpoena (“Motion to Compel”).  The Motion to Compel is scheduled for June 16, 2023. 

Defendant seeks medical records from Allstar because Plaintiffs listed Allstar as one of the treating providers for their claimed injuries.  Defendant issued a deposition subpoena on Allstar on April 18, 2022.  However, to date, Allstar has not produced responsive documents as to Hayrapetyan, thus necessitating the Motion to Compel.  (Young Decl., ¶¶ 4, 7, 8.)  Defendant argues a trial continuance is necessary to allow Defendant to bring the Motion to Compel and to evaluate Hayrapetyan’s claimed injuries.  Trial is currently scheduled for May 5, 2023.    

Defendant has demonstrated good cause exists to continue the trial and all related dates.  Further, the Court notes that no opposition to this motion has been filed.  As such, no party will be prejudiced by a trial continuance.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued from May 5, 2023 to November 9, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The Final Status Conference is continued from April 23, 2023 to October 28, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27 of Spring Street Courthouse.  All pretrial deadlines including discovery and motion cut-off dates are to be based on the new trial date.  

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 14th day of March 2023