Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV21917, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV21917 Hearing Date: March 6, 2024 Dept: 27
Hon. Lee S. Arian¿
Department 27¿
Tentative Ruling
Hearing
Date: 3/6/2024
at 1:30 p.m.¿¿
Case
No./Name.: 21STCV21917 BERTHA MARSHALL vs LOS ANGELES
COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Motion Name: Motion
to Continue Trial
Moving
Party: Plaintiff
Responding
Party: Defendant LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
Notice: Sufficient¿¿
¿¿
Ruling: PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS DENIED.
Background
On June 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint
alleging injury while riding the LA metro train. Defendant filed an answer on
July 1, 2021. The trial date, initially set for December 9, 2022, has been
continued three times, with the current trial date set for March 7, 2024. On
February 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue the trial to September
9, 2024. The motion argues for a continuance on the grounds that Plaintiff's
counsel was recently substituted and requires additional time to prepare for
trial. Furthermore, it is contended that extra time is necessary to fully
assess Plaintiff's ongoing damages once she has completed her treatment and her
diagnosis and treatment plan are finalized. (Declaration of Silvia E. Reynoso ¶
2.) Plaintiff requests the court to reopen discovery to allow the parties to
designate expert witnesses and conduct expert depositions, noting that no
expert witnesses have been designated, and no party has conducted expert
depositions. (Declaration of Silvia E. Reynoso ¶ 5.) Defendant opposes the
reopening of discovery.
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 case was filed on June 11, 2021, and the trial
date has been continued three times from December 9, 2022, to May 31, 2023,
then to December 8, 2023, and finally to March 7, 2024. Plaintiff has had over two
and a half years to conduct discovery. Furthermore,
the motion filed on February 13, 2024, comes just weeks before the trial date.
Requesting a continuance so near to the trial date prejudices Defendant, who
has devoted significant time and resources to prepare for trial.
Furthermore, the court finds Plaintiff's argument
for the necessity of further examination of Plaintiff's condition to be
unpersuasive. Plaintiff has undergone medical treatment for a concussion and
headaches since 2020. There is no evidence presented by Plaintiff that any new
symptoms, aside from headaches, will be assessed or why the medical evaluations
conducted since 2020 are insufficient for trial. Additionally, there is no
evidence to suggest that the symptoms will completely heal by the proposed new trial
date in September 2024, thereby enabling a "full" evaluation of the
damages. The nature of her condition and her continued treatment shows
otherwise. Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate good
cause for the continuance of the trial for another 6 months.
Moreover, Plaintiff contends that the Law
Office of Silvia E. Reynoso was retained on January 25, 2024, and that the new
counsel required time to prepare for trial. However, Plaintiff fails to cite
any legal authority to support the notion that the substitution of attorney
constitutes good cause for a continuance of the trial. The new counsel inherits
the case and step in the shoes of the original counsel. Nevertheless, in the
interest of justice, the court will grant parties an additional 30 days for the
parties to prepare for trial. Consequently, the trial date is continued to
April 8, 2024, and the Final Status Conference (FSC) is rescheduled to March
27, 2024.
¿¿¿
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.¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿