Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV36894, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

On October 6, 2021, plaintiff Ashley Weems (“Plaintiff”) filed this negligence action against defendants Rosenda Robles and Clean Air Testing Inc. (“Defendants”).

On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion seeking a 120-day trial continuance and to set all discovery and cutoff dates based upon the new trial date. Trial is currently scheduled for February 14, 2024. Defendants oppose the motion.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b) outlines that “a party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c), the Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff argues good cause exists to grant this motion for the following reasons. On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff had a cervical fusion surgery and has not yet recovered from the surgery and is not expected to have recovered by the time of the current trial date on February 14, 2024. Plaintiff’s treating doctor, Dr. Pablo Pazmino, has stated to Plaintiff’s counsel that in order to properly diagnose Plaintiff’s prognosis and potential need for an additional surgery, she must recover for a few months and stabilize from the cervical fusion. Thus, Plaintiff argues that good cause exists to continue the trial date and the expert designation and discovery dates due to the need to present an accurate picture of her prognosis at trial. Plaintiff further states that she seeks a continuance of the expert disclosure and discovery cut-off dates based on the new trial date, but does not seek to reopen fact discovery.

Defendants oppose arguing that trial is only 17 days away, the trial has been continued twice, and that the doctor has had more than enough time to evaluate Plaintiff.

The Court finds that there is good cause for a short continuance based on the evaluation of Plaintiff post-surgery. However, discovery should be limited to this evaluation only.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Trial is continued from February 14, 2024 to FATD 3/20/24 8:30 a.m. in Department 27. The final status conference is continued from January 30, 2024 to _____________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27. All pretrial deadlines including discovery and motion cut-off dates are to be based on the new trial date.

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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court