Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV30559, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV30559, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30559 Hearing Date: October 13, 2023 Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE: October 13, 2023 TRIAL DATE: March 18, 2024

CASE: Maryam Shahbazi v. City of Beverly Hills, et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCV30559

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

MOVING PARTY: Defendant City of Beverly Hills

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Maryam Shahbazi

I. BACKGROUND

On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff, Maryam Shahbazi, filed a form complaint against Defendant, City of Beverly Hills, for injuries arising from a trip and fall because of an uneven sidewalk. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 18, 2022. Defendant filed its Answer to the FAC on November 3, 2022.

On September 15, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to continue the trial date and to set all related discovery and motion cut-off dates to the new trial date. This is the first request for a trial continuance.

Plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendant replied.

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).)

Deadlines for Summary Judgment Motion

Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c requires a Motion for Summary Judgment be made any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action.¿ The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before trial, unless the Court, for good cause, orders otherwise.¿ Parties must serve notice of the motion and all supporting papers at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.¿¿¿

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant argues good cause exists to continue the trial date because the earliest available hearing date for its summary judgment motion is after the current trial date. The hearing date for the summary judgment motion is March 26, 2024. Trial is currently set for March 18, 2024. Defendant further argues a trial continuance is necessary because essential discovery is not yet completed. For example, Plaintiff and Defendant’s Persons Most Qualified have not been deposed.

Plaintiff contends the motion should be denied because Defendant has procrastinated in completing discovery. In support, Plaintiff points to the fact that Defendant propounded discovery and issued subpoenas in January of 2023.

Defendant argues any delay in completing discovery is attributable to Plaintiff. In support, Defendant states the subpoenas had to be re-issued after learning that Plaintiff’s date of birth, as listed in her Claim for Damages, did not match the date of birth Plaintiff gave to her medical providers. Defendant has yet to receive all subpoenaed medical records. Plaintiff also concedes her deposition has not taken place and does not mention she has yet to take any depositions.

Defendant is entitled to have its motion for summary judgment heard. On this basis alone, the Court will continue the trial to accommodate the current hearing date. Plaintiff does not argue she will be prejudiced by a trial continuance. With respect to discovery, the Court will continue discovery to the new trial date. This case has been at issue for just over a year. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause exists to continue the trial date and all related dates.

IV. CONCLUSION

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED. The Final Status Conference scheduled for March 4, 2024 is CONTINUED to September 5, 2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 27 of Spring Street Courthouse. The Non-Jury Trial scheduled for March 18, 2024 is CONTINUED to September 19, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 27 of 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 September 19, 2024.

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.