Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV44637, Date: 2024-01-08 Tentative Ruling

This is an action arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 7, 2020. On December 7, 2021, Plaintiff Rosa Suarez (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Steven Michael Kochie, Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), and Does 1 to 20, alleging causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle and (2) General Negligence.

On November 28, 2023, Defendant Lyft filed the instant motion to continue the trial date from January 12, 2024, to May 29, 2024 (the “Motion”). The Motion also seeks a continuance of the attendant pre-trial deadlines.

On November 29, 2023, the Court granted in part Defendant Lyft’s ex parte application to continue trial and related deadlines. (11/29/23 Minute Order.) The Court continued non-jury trial from January 12, 2024, to May 29, 2024. (11/29/23 Minute Order.) The Court stated that any “[r]equest to move discovery dates based on new trial date is denied. Must be done by stipulation or noticed motion” and that the “[d]iscovery deadlines remain as previously set.” (11/29/23 Minute Order.)

On December 5, 2023, the Court entered an order pursuant to a joint stipulation (the “Stipulation”) between the parties that continued “[a]ll pre-trial deadlines, expert disclosures, and discovery and motion cut-off dates . . . based on the new trial date of May 29, 2024.” (See 12/05/23 Order to Continue Trial and All Trial-Related Dates.)

Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(8) provides that the court has the power to “amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.” “[T]he power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) “A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances.” (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.)

“A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or ex parte application . . . with supporting declarations.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(b).) “The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” (Ibid.)

“[E]ach 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 may be present where a party has not been unable “to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts” or there has been 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(c)(6)-(7).)

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 sets forth a list of non-exhaustive factors to be analyzed when determining whether good cause for a trial continuance is present. A court considers factors such as: (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).)

The Court finds that the Motion is moot. The relief requested by the Motion has already been granted based on the Court’s ruling on Defendant Lyft’s ex parte application to continue trial, as well as the Court’s December 5, 2023 order continuing all pre-trial deadlines, including discovery and motion cut-off dates, in accordance with the new trial date of May 29, 2024.

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