Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC05457, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC05457    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, January 04, 2024

Case Name:                             JOEVANNY RUIZ, an individual; KASSANDRA GARZA, an individual; and JORDAN CABANILLA, an individual v. JOHN DOE, an individual; STEPHEN KENNEDY, an individual; NELVA STEVENSON, an individual; and DOES 1-100 inclusive

Case No.:                                22STLC05457

Motion:                                   Motion to Continue [Final Status Conference], Trial Date and all Related Expert Discovery Dates

Moving Party:                         Plaintiffs Joevanny Ruiz, Kassandra Garza, and Jordan Cabanilla

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    N/A

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiffs Joevanny Ruiz, et al.’s Motion to Continue (Final Status Conference), Trial Date and all Related Expert Discovery Dates is GRANTED in part.

The Court continues the February 14, 2024 TRIAL date to AUGUST 14, 2024, at 8:30am in

Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

 Motions and discovery cut-off dates are to follow the new trial date.

The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      N/A

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      N/A

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       N/A 

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of December 20, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of December 27, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On August 17, 2022, Plaintiffs Joevanny Ruiz (“Ruiz”), Kassandra Garza (“Garza”), and Jordan Cabanilla (“Cabanilla”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a personal injury suit against Defendants John Doe (“Doe”), Stephen Kennedy (“Kennedy”), and Nelva Stevenson (“Stevenson”) (collectively “Defendants”) for damages stemming from a motor vehicle collision. Defendants have not filed an answer to the complaint.

On December 05, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Continue [Final Status Conference], Trial Date, and all Related Expert Discovery Dates. No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiffs pray for the Court to grant their motion to continue the trial to complete expert discovery and attend mediation.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (Id.)  Good cause includes the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness, party, or trial counsel; “the substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;” the addition of a new party; a party’s excused inability to obtain evidence; or a significant, unanticipated change in the case.  (Id.) 

Furthermore, the Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: 

(1) The proximity of the trial date; 

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to 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. 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).) 

II.        Discussion

Plaintiffs seek a continuance of the final conference setting, trial date and all related discoveries citing good cause because “Defendants have yet to appear in the matter, and Plaintiffs need to investigate this claim before trial for this matter can take place. Because Plaintiffs excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts, the trial cannot be completed without the two Defendants who have still to join this matter.” (Mot. p.7:26-8-8:1-2.)

Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that the following circumstances support their request to continue. Plaintiffs applied for a continuance as early as possible. (Id. p. 8: 25-26.) The length of continuance sought, in this case one year, would not be excessive considering what needs to occur in that time and thus would not prolong the action unnecessarily. (Id.) The interest of justice favors continuance of the trial because Defendants have not made an appearance despite being served at the time the motion was filed. (Id. p. 9.) If the trial were to proceed, Plaintiffs would not be able to fully participate and would not be able to present their case which would cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs. (Id.) Plaintiffs do not know of any alternatives means of continuing without the two Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiffs are unaware of any prejudice to Defendants. (Id.)

Defendants do not write in opposition to the instant Motion. 

Having considered the circumstances of the instant case and the arguments presented by Plaintiffs, the Court finds that there is good cause to continue the trial. However, the Court notes that Plaintiffs mistake their authority for requesting trial date continuances. Here, Plaintiffs cite to LA Superior Court’s Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedure in Personal Injury Hub as relevant authority. (Mot. p. 2:20-23.) However, the Eighth Amended Standing Order only applies to Personal Injury Hub courts and not to Limited Civil courts. LA Superior Court’s Third Amended Standing Order, which applies to limited civil jurisdictions, provides that a trial can be continued to a later date if service is not accomplished within six (6) months of filing the complaint. Here, Plaintiffs served the summons and complaint on both Defendants in October 2023. (See 10/05/23 Proof of Personal Service; See Also 10/02/2023 Proof of Service by Substituted Service.) The Court notes that the complaint was filed on August 17, 2022, thus service was not accomplished within six months. Moreover, the Court notes that Limited Civil courts generally do not have final statues conferences, so the effect of this motion would be to continue the trial date and subsequent discovery cut-off dates.

Finally, the Court finds that a year extension of the trial date is not supported based on Plaintiffs’ moving papers. Here Plaintiffs state that around October 25, 2023, “Counsel for Defendants e-mailed Plaintiffs’ counsel attaching ‘evidence’ showing that the vehicle belonging to Defendant Nelva Stevenson was allegedly in a tow yard from September 7, 2020 – September 10, 2020, in Oakland, CA.” (Pius Joseph Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Acknowledging that the “evidence” from Defendants’ counsel was provided via email on October 25, 2023, any investigation needed to locate the correct Defendant can be done within the next few months to determine how Plaintiffs should proceed and provide sufficient time to conduct discovery and prepare this matter for trial. Moreover, there are alternative means to address nonresponsive defendants.  Thus, for these reasons, the Court is inclined to grant a continuance of the trial date for six months rather than a year.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial Date and Re-Open Discovery is GRANTED in part. 

The Court continues the trial date to August 14, 2024, at 8:30am in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Motion and discovery cut-off dates are to follow the new trial date. 

II.        Conclusion

            Plaintiffs Joevanny Ruiz, et al.’s Motion to Continue Trial Date and all Related Expert Discovery Dates is GRANTED in part.

The Court CONTINUES the February 14, 2024 TRIAL date to AUGUST 14, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Motion and discovery cut-off dates are to follow the new trial date of August 14, 2024.

The moving party is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling and to file proof of service of such notice with the Court within two days of notice of this Court’s Order.