Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV4703, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV4703    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff Carlos Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed his operative complaint against Defendants Katherine Aiton and Mark Aiton collectively “Defendants”) for negligence arising out of a car collision on or about February 16, 2018.  Trial is currently scheduled for February 27, 2023.  On December 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order continuing the trial date to June 23, 2023, with all deadlines to follow the new trial date.  On January 16, 2023, Defendants filed a non-opposition.  Having reviewed the motion and non-opposition, the Court rules as follows.

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.)  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).)

III.        DISCUSSION

          Plaintiff contends and Defendants do no oppose that there is good cause to continue the trial date because the grounds and factors enumerated in rule 3.1332 exist in this case.  There has been a significant change in circumstances in this matter, which entails more discovery to be completed.  Specifically, Plaintiff’s neck pain has recently returned and Plaintiff is continuing treatment and will undergo surgery.  (Declaration of Yazdanapnah ¶ 5.)  Also, prejudice and irreparable harm will be suffered by the parties if they are not allowed time to obtain the necessary facts and documentation necessary to prepare their case, particularly since Defendants have not been able to conduct an independent medical examination yet.  (Id., ¶ 6.)  All parties have stipulated to a trial continuance and Defendants do not oppose a trial continuance.  (Id., ¶ 7.)  Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial and all related dates is GRANTED. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued from February 27, 2023, to August 3, 2023, at 8:30 am in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from February 10, 2023 to July 20, 2023 at 10 am.  All corresponding pre-trial deadlines, including discovery 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 20th day of January 2023