Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV33539, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33539    Hearing Date: February 21, 2024    Dept: 27

Kevin McElrath v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV33539

[UNOPPOSED]

Motion – Jointly Filed Motion to Continue Trial

TENTATIVE

            The Court grants the Motion but continues trial only until July 29, 2024.

Background

            This case stems from injuries sustained by Kevin McElrath (Plaintiff) after stepping off a bus and being hit by a motor vehicle. On August 9, 2020, Plaintiff was a passenger on a public bus operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (LACMA) when the bus, after allegedly skipping Plaintiff’s bus stop, stopped in the middle of the street and opened its door to allow Plaintiff to exit the bus. (Complaint, ¶ 6.) As Plaintiff exited, he was hit by an oncoming vehicle and suffered injuries. (Id.) Plaintiff filed suit on September 10, 2021, with a Complaint containing three causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) negligent entrustment, and (3) negligence per se.

            The motion before the Court is a jointly filed Motion to Continue Trial and All Other Dates (Motion). As the Motion is filed by all parties, there is no opposition.

Discussion

Legal Standard

            California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation):

(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only 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.

(Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)¿¿¿

            The court may also consider the following factors: “(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 3.1332(d).)¿¿ ¿

Analysis

            All parties have stipulated to a continuance. The parties have noted that although they have diligently engaged in good faith and cooperative discussions regarding discovery, there is essential discovery that is still outstanding including depositions, a vehicle inspection, and medical records. Moreover, they have indicated that mediation is scheduled for May 14, 2024.

            While the Court finds a basis to continue the May 7 trial, namely, the May 14 mediation, the Court does not find that the Motion sets forth good cause for the requested continuance to October 2024. Significantly, the parties have not indicated why in the 2.5 years since filing they have been unable to complete discovery and why they cannot do so in the next 60 to 90 days. Given the May 14 mediation, the Court sets trial for July 29, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. and the Final Status Conference for July XX, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.