Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV19311, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV19311 Hearing Date: March 7, 2024 Dept: 27
Complaint filed: 5/21/2021¿¿
¿¿¿
Hon. Lee S. Arian¿¿¿
Department 27¿¿¿
Tentative Ruling¿¿¿
¿¿¿
Hearing Date: 3/7/2024 at 1:30 p.m.¿¿¿
Case No./Name: 21STCV19311 FRANCINE ROSE MENDEZ vs POMONA VALLEY HOSPITAL¿¿¿
Motion: DEFEDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
Moving Party: Defendant Rakesh Sinha, M.D
Responding Party: Unopposed
Notice: Sufficient¿¿¿
¿¿
Ruling: DEFEDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS GRANTED
Background
On May 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice case against POMONA VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER. Plaintiff amended her Complaint on May 18, 2023, to include Dr. Sinha along with two other doctors as Defendants in this case. On December 15, 2023, Defendant Dr. Sinha filed an answer and now moves the court to continue trial from May 14, 2024, to February 25, 2025. Defendant argues that his answer was filed only a few months prior and requires more time to conduct discovery and prepare a defense. Additionally, Defendant's counsel has prior trial obligation around May 14, 2024, for a trial approaching its five-year deadline, and therefore is unavailable on the current trial date. This motion is unopposed.
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¿
The court finds good cause for the continuance. Defendant showed that Dr. Sinha and various other defendants were recently added to the case. Specifically, Dr. Sinha filed an answer in December 2023 and needs additional time to conduct discovery and prepare a defense. Moreover, no party has opposed the motion. Thus, good cause is demonstrated, and the new trial date is hereby rescheduled for February 25, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.¿ The Final Status Conference is scheduled for February ___, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.¿
¿
¿¿¿¿¿
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.¿¿