Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV43957, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV43957    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On December 1, 2021, Plaintiff, Christy Ann Carrasco, filed this action against Badillo, LLC (“Badillo”) (erroneously sued as Badillo Street Apartments, LLC), Georgina Perez, and Does 1 through 50 for injuries Plaintiff suffered when a Pitbull dog allegedly attacked Plaintiff’s face.  Plaintiff named Brianna Ibarra as Doe 1 and Vincent Martinez as Doe 2 on February 24, 2023.  Plaintiff named Hugo Lopez as Doe 3 on March 23, 2023.   

Defendant Georgina Perez (hereinafter, “Defendant”) now moves for an order continuing the trial date and all related dates and deadlines for at least six months.  Badillo filed a joinder to Defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 31, 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 minimum six-month trial continuance.  The basis for her motion includes the following: (1) new defense counsel recently substituted into the case after Defendant’s former counsel discovered a conflict over a year into the action; (2) additional discovery is needed and other discovery, such as deposing witnesses, have yet to be completed; (3) Plaintiff added new Doe Defendants, each of whom will need time to prepare for trial; (4) Defendant intends to file a motion for summary judgment/adjudication which cannot be heard until after the current trial date; and (5) Plaintiff’s IME was taken on February 16 and to date no results have been provided.  (Lezon Decl., ¶¶ 8-14.)  Based on the foregoing, Defendant argues that good cause exists for the requested trial continuance.

In opposition, Plaintiff agrees a trial continuance is necessary but contends that there is no good cause supporting a trial continuance beyond December 2023.   

Given the reasons cited by Defendant and the accord amongst the parties that a trial continuance is necessary, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial.  Defense counsel needs time to prepare for trial, as will the recently named defendants, and essential discovery remains outstanding.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Trial is continued from May 31, 2023 to December 1, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from May 17, 2023 to November 17, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27.  All discovery cut-off dates, all pretrial deadlines including discovery, expert, and motion cut-off dates are set to the new trial date of December 1, 2023.  

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 12th day of April 2023