Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV40508, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40508    Hearing Date: October 13, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     October 13, 2023                   TRIAL DATE:  December 7, 2023

CASE:                                Ramon Caino v. Ikerr Mendez, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV40508

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

MOVING PARTY:                   Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, Ikerr Mendez, and Yang Wang

RESPONDING PARTY:     Plaintiff Ramon Caino

I.          BACKGROUND

            This is a motor vehicle negligence action.  Plaintiff, Ramon Caino, filed a complaint against Defendants, Ikerr Mendez (“Mendez”), Yang Wang (“Wang”), and Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC (“Uber Defendants”), for injuries arising from a December 19, 2019 motor vehicle collision.  Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Wang when Wang’s vehicle collided with Mendez’s vehicle.  Wang was driving in the course and scope of his employment with Uber Defendants at the time of the incident.

            Relevant Procedural Background

            On May 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Alberto Cintura Nino and Ontoniel Rodriguez Saucedo (LASC Case No. 21STCV18653) for a May 25, 2019 motor vehicle collision.  This case is currently in arbitration.

            On September 19, 2023, Uber Defendants filed this motion to continue the trial.  Plaintiff filed an opposition.  Uber Defendants filed a reply.  This is the second request for a trial continuance.

            On October 5, 2023, Uber Defendants and Plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Partial Stay as to Uber Defendants.  The Court granted the stipulation on the same day.

            On October 6, 2023, Mendez and Wang each filed a Joinder to Uber Defendants’ motion.

II.           LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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, subdivision (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

            Uber Defendants argue good cause exists to continue the trial date for at least six months because Plaintiff is claiming identical and combined damages from an earlier car accident.  The earlier accident is the subject of the complaint Plaintiff filed on May 18, 2021 in Case No. 21STCV18653 (the “May 19 Action”).  Uber Defendants further argue it is in the interests of justice to continue the trial in this action until the May 19 Accident is resolved to prevent a potential double recovery by Plaintiff.

            Plaintiff does not oppose a short continuance but instead opposes any continuance sought until after the May 2019 Action is resolved.  In support, Plaintiff points to the fact that arbitration has not been set in the May 2019 Action.  Further, Plaintiff argues that although the injuries arising from the May 2019 Action are similar to the injuries suffered in this action, they are not identical.

            Given the lack of clarity regarding the status of the May 2019 Action, the Court is not inclined to continue the trial at this time.  But a continuance may be appropriate.  To provide the parties time to learn more about the status of the May 2019 Action, the Court will continue this hearing to November 14, 2023.  If the parties learn anything else about the status of May 2019 Action prior to the November 14, 2023 hearing, the parties are to file a status report no later than three court days before the hearing.      

IV.       CONCLUSION 

The motion is CONTINUED to November 14, 2023 at 1:30 PM in Department 27 of Spring Street Courthouse. 

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   October 13, 2023                                            ___________________________________

                                                                                    Kerry Bensinger

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            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.