Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV30097, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30097    Hearing Date: December 11, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jesus Soriano   

I.            INTRODUCTION

This action arises from a slip and fall. On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff Jesus Soriano (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; and (2) negligence.

On August 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney which indicated that Plaintiff was substituting Carlo Noravian as his new legal representative in place of his prior counsel, Ricardo Kim.

On October 15, 2021, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.  

On December 27, 2021, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order Between Parties for Continuance of Set Dates Including Trial. The Court’s December 27, 2021, order continued non-jury trial in this action from February 7, 2022, to February 22, 2023.

On January 11, 2023, the Court entered a second Stipulation and Order Between Parties for Continuance of Set Dates Including Trial. The Court’s January 11, 2023 order continued non-jury trial from February 22, 2023 to October 31, 2023.

On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney which indicated that Plaintiff was substituting Christopher Mesaros as his new legal representative and that Carolo Noravian was his former legal representative.

On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the trial on the grounds that Plaintiff retained new counsel on September 23, 2023, and counsel and Plaintiff needed time to prepare for trial.  

On October 3, 2023, after hearing, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue trial. (10/03/23 Minute Order.) The Court continued non-jury trial from October 31, 2023 to June 18, 2024. (Id.) The Court, however, stated that “[d]iscovery remains tied to the current trial date, not the new trial date. The parties may submit a noticed motion or stipulation and order to continue the discovery deadlines to the new trial date.” (Id.)

The Instant Motion

           On November 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served the instant unopposed motion for an order reopening discovery (the “Motion”). The Motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff’s prior counsel, Carlos Noravian, become ill and Plaintiff has retained new counsel and discovery is not complete. Any opposition to the Motion was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd.(b).)

          Initially, the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has been met pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) Except as provided in Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (b).) Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050(a) provides that on motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.

In assessing a motion brought under Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050, a court assesses the following factors: (1) the necessity and the reasons for discovery; (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier; (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party; and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b)(1)-(4).) A court has discretion on whether to grant a motion brought under California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2024.050. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).) “In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) Good cause must be shown to reopen discovery. (Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1293.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Plaintiff retained the Law Office of Christopher Mesaros on September 23, 2023. (Declaration of Christopher Paul Mesaros [“Mesaros Decl.”], ¶ 2.) Upon review of the file, counsel ascertained that this matter is not currently ready for trial because certain items of discovery have not been completed due to prior counsel’s severe illness. (Id.) Such discovery items which need to be completed are the deposition of Defendant and/or its agents and employees, designation of expert witnesses, subpoenaing of medical records and bills, and preparation of trial documents. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel e-mailed and faxed Defendant’s counsel numerous requests to continue trial, but no response has been received from Defendant’s counsel. (Id., ¶ 3.) Without completing the depositions of Defendants, obtaining relevant evidence, and/or expert witnesses, Plaintiff faces substantial prejudice and irreparable harm. (Id., ¶ 5.) The discovery issues are not Plaintiff’s fault as prior counsel fell severely ill and was unable to adjudicate the matter to the best of his abilities. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff only learned of the need for additional discovery when new counsel was substituted into this action. (Id.) Defendant will not be prejudiced by reopening discovery and good cause exists according to Plaintiff’s counsel to reopen discovery. (Id., ¶ 7.)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a showing warranting reopening discovery in accordance with the new trial date pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2024.050. Counsel for Plaintiff has made a showing of good cause. Counsel attests that discovery should be reopened due to Plaintiff’s prior counsel falling severely ill. Plaintiff has shown that the need to complete discovery is necessary for his preparation in the matter. The Court finds that Plaintiff has acted diligently in seeking discovery. Also, Plaintiff has indicated that Defendant will not be prejudiced by reopening discovery and the Court has no indication to the contrary given the lack of opposition to the Motion.  

Therefore, exercising its discretion, the Court GRANTS the Motion. Moreover, given that the Motion is unopposed, there is an inference it is meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

IV.         CONCLUSION

The Motion is GRANTED.

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 11th day of December 2023