Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV15463, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15463    Hearing Date: August 30, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     August 30, 2023                     TRIAL DATE:  November 7, 2023

CASE:                                Lorie Benson v. Fullerton Island Village Apartments, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV15463

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

MOVING PARTY:                   Defendants Fullerton Island Village Apartments, LLC and Ralph Raulli

RESPONDING PARTY:     Plaintiff Lorie Benson

I.          BACKGROUND

            On May 10, 2022, Plaintiff, Lorie Benson, initiated this action against Defendants, Fullerton Island Village Apartments, LLC and Ralph Raulli, for injuries arising from a trip and fall on the stairway of Defendants’ premises. 

            On July 28, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to continue trial to May 16, 2024, and to set all related deadlines to the new trial date.  Plaintiff opposes and Defendants reply.

            This is the first request for a trial continuance.

II.           LEGAL STANDARD 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

            After weighing the relevant factors, the Court finds good cause exists to continue the trial date.   

            1. Proximity of the Trial Date. Trial is set to take place in roughly two months.  Defendants argue essential discovery remains outstanding that cannot be completed before the current trial date.  Specifically, Defendants have yet to conduct three medical examinations—neurological, orthopedic, and neuropsychological—of Plaintiff to evaluate her claimed injuries.  The neurology exam was scheduled for August 22, 2023, and the orthopedic exam is scheduled for October 30, 2023.  The neuropsychology exam has yet to be scheduled. 

            Plaintiff argues this discovery can be completed before the current trial date.  However, given the number of examinations still to be completed, the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of a continuance. 

            2. Previous continuances, extensions of time, or delays of trial due to any party.  This is the first request for a continuance.  This factor weighs in favor of a continuance.

            3. The length of the continuance requested. Defendants request a trial continuance to May 16, 2024—a period totaling over six months.  Defendants argue May 16, 2024 will allow the parties breathing room to address any issues that may arise with the outstanding discovery, as well as to participate in mediation.  Plaintiff argues that Defendants fail to show good cause for any trial continuance as Plaintiff is motivated to work with Defendants in the remaining time before the current trial date.  If the Court is inclined to grant the motion, Plaintiff argues a three-month continuance would be more than sufficient.  The Court finds Defendants do not sufficiently justify a trial continuance of more than six months.  This factor weighs slightly against a trial continuance.

            4. Availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance.  The parties do not address this factor.  However, the Court recognizes that there is no clear substitute for Plaintiff’s IMEs.  This factor also weighs in favor of a trial continuance.

            5. Prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance.  Defendants argue they will be prejudiced if a trial continuance is not granted given Plaintiff’s orthopedic and neuropsychological exams have not been completed (by the time of the hearing).  Plaintiff, in turn, asserts she will be prejudiced by further delay but does not explain how she will be prejudiced by a trial continuance.  The completion of Plaintiff’s IMEs is relevant to Plaintiff’s injuries and Defendants’ preparation for trial.  This factor weighs in favor of a trial continuance.

            In sum, the factors weigh in favor of granting a trial continuance.  This is the first trial continuance in a case that has been at issue for less than 13 months. 

            Accordingly, the motion is granted.

IV.       CONCLUSION 

The motion is granted.  The Final Status Conference scheduled for October 24, 2023, is CONTINUED to April 2, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse, and the Non-Jury Trial scheduled for November 7, 2023 is CONTINUED to April 16, 2024 at 08:30 a.m. in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  All discovery cut-off dates, all pretrial deadlines including discovery, expert, and motion cut-off dates are set to the new trial date of April 16, 2024. 

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   August 30, 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.