Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV04631, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV04631    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 27

Complaint Filed:          2/3/2020

Hon. Lee S. Arian  

Department 27  

Tentative Ruling 

Hearing Date:                3/4/2024 at 1:30 p.m.   

Case No./Name.:         20STCV04631 WENDY VASQUEZ vs MIRIAM SUSAN EPSTEIN  

Motion:                              MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Moving Party:                 Plaintiff Wendy Vasquez

Responding Party:      Unopposed

Notice:                                Sufficient   

Ruling:                               PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS DENIED (the Court is, however, willing to discuss a very brief continuance to accommodate counsel’s planned vacation)

Background

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed this auto accident case. Defendant filed her answer on June 17, 2020. The original trial date was set for August 3, 2021, which the Court continued to December 2021. The court continued the trial a second time to August 8, 2022, a third to May 25, 2023, a fourth to October 9, 2023, and finally a fifth time to April 4, 2024.  The Court granted each of these five continuances on the request of the parties.  On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the current motion to continue the trial a sixth time to November 4, 2024.

Plaintiff contends a continuance is warranted because she underwent back surgery on October 28, 2023. The deposition of the treating doctors has not been taken due to the uncertainty of Plaintiff's recovery from the surgery. (Motion ¶ 4.) Plaintiff further contends that the trial should be continued because she is weak, experiencing significant pain, and faces considerable post-operative conditions. (Motion ¶ 5.) Additionally, Plaintiff's counsel states that he has a scheduled vacation from April 7, 2024, to April 20, 2024. (Supp. Herzog Decl. ¶ 1.)

Legal Standard

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).) Continuances are thus generally disfavored. (See Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (b).) Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates. (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.) Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.)

Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) the addition of a new party if (A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or (B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case; (6) a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c).)

The court must also consider such relevant factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by 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. (Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)

Analysis and Conclusion

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).) Continuances are thus generally disfavored. (See Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (b)) This stance is particularly relevant here given that there have already been five prior continuances in this case.

The present motion for continuance was filed on February 5, 2024, two months before the scheduled trial date on April 4, 2024, despite Plaintiff undergoing surgery on October 28, 2023. According to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b), a continuance motion must be submitted "as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”  Plaintiff, who is seeking the continuance, has the burden of showing that she complied with this rule, yet she fails to state when her post-surgery conditions arose. In fact, the motion and its declarations do not give any information on the nature of Plaintiff’s "post-operative sequelae," including its severity and the expected duration of the recovery process. Consequently, the Court has no basis upon which to evaluate how these issues might impact Plaintiff’s ability to participate in the trial two months from the date of the declaration. Thus, Plaintiff failed to make an affirmative showing of good cause.

Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to make an affirmative showing why any deposition of Plaintiff’s treating doctor cannot occur before trial. (Motion ¶ 2-4.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel finally declares that he has a vacation to Portugal from April 7, 2024, to April 20, 2024. (Herzog Supplemental Decl. ¶1.) However, this vacation begins three days after the trial date of April 4, 2024. Counsel should have considered the trial date when planning this trip, particularly given the age of this case and the latitude that the Court has already given the parties in setting a trial date. Moreover, Plaintiff's counsel is not a solo practitioner; other attorneys in Plaintiff's office could assist Counsel during and after trial.  Nonetheless, the Court is willing to discuss a BRIEF continuance with the parties.

Given the five previous trial continuances and the current motion's lack of an affirmative showing of good cause, Plaintiff's motion for a continuance to November 2024 is hereby DENIED.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:    

·                    If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.      

·                    Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

 ·                    If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.