Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV07722, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07722    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

                    I.INTRODUCTION 

On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff Natasha Vea (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Mike Brown Grandstands, Inc., and Jaime Davalos (“Defendants”) alleging two causes of action for Motor Vehicle and Negligence arising from a vehicle accident where Plaintiff sustained various injuries.

            On August 19, 2021, Defendants Mike Brown Grandstands, Inc., and Jaime Davalos filed an Answer.

            On October 19, 2023, Defendants filed the current Motion to Continue Trial Date and Re-Open Discovery. As of November 13, 2023, no opposition has been filed.

                 II.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.  (Ibid.)  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.  (Ibid.) 

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).) 

              III.DISCUSSION 

Defendants move to have the Court continue the trial until March 2024. Defendants argue that good cause exist to continue the trial that is scheduled for November 17, 2023. The discovery cut-off date was October 18, 2023. However, on October 11, 2023, Defendants were informed from Plaintiff’s counsel that Plaintiff had two surgeries, one in March 2023, and one in August 2023. Thus, a trial continuance is necessary to allow Defendants to complete further discovery given that they were just informed about these two surgeries.

The decision to grant or deny a continuance is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citation.] The trial court's exercise of that discretion will be upheld if it is based on a reasoned judgment and complies with legal principles and policies appropriate to the case before the court.” (Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.) Further, judges have to ensure a somewhat swift resolution while still ensuring that the matter is resolved based on the merits rather than any procedural issues. “When the two policies collide head-on, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency.” (Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395.)

Here, the Court finds that continuing the trial and re-opening discovery to have the cut-off date correspond to the new trial date is proper. Here, only a month before trial was set to begin, and a week before discovery ended, Defendants discovered that Plaintiff had two different surgeries, involving her spine. Thus, Defendants have not had an opportunity to serve discovery or take a deposition of Plaintiff after these surgeries. Previously, Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the trial dates indicated that Plaintiff was electing to undergo and underwent spinal surgery on March 6, 2023. The Court granted this application. Thus, while it is the not the first continuance, the August 2023 surgery was not disclosed until October 2023. Therefore, without continuing the matter, Defendants will be prejudiced. Lastly, both parties are agreeable to a continuance.

Motion to Continue Trial and discovery is GRANTED.  Trial shall be continued to March XX, 2024, and the discover cut-off shall be tied to this new trial date.

              IV.CONCLUSION 

Motion to Continue Trial 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: November 16, 2023