Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 223STCV17569, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 223STCV17569    Hearing Date: May 14, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Pedro Magana moves to continue the trial, currently set for May 23, 2025, by approximately 90 days, or alternatively, seeks an order permitting the introduction of post-discovery medical evidence at trial.

Plaintiff argues that a continuance is warranted due to ongoing medical treatment, potential future surgery, and the opportunity for meaningful mediation. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment for injuries to his low back, left hip, and left knee, including PRP injections, and is considering a left knee arthroscopy. Plaintiff further contends that he has not responded to conservative treatment and that surgery to his knee and spine is now under consideration, with anticipated costs exceeding $100,000. Plaintiff also states that both parties are open to mediation, and that a short continuance would allow for productive settlement discussions.

However, in personal injury litigation, ongoing treatment is a common circumstance and, by itself, does not justify a continuance of trial. Although Plaintiff anticipates future surgery, no procedure has been scheduled. There is no basis to delay trial by 90 days if surgery is not expected to occur within that time. While Plaintiff references the possibility of mediation, no mediation has been scheduled. More importantly, the Final Status Conference is set for May 19, 2025, just five days after the hearing on this motion. The motion was filed too close to trial and does not present sufficient justification for a continuance in a case that will be hitting its two-year mark in July 2025 (see California Rule of Court 3.714 (all unlimited civil cases to be completed within 2 years)). The Court denies the motion.

As to Plaintiff’s alternative request for an order permitting the introduction of post-discovery medical evidence at trial, that issue must be addressed by the trial judge. In the PI Hub, a different judge presides over trial, and any ruling on evidentiary matters falls within that judge’s discretion.

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’s 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.