Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV15720, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV15720, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15720 Hearing Date: November 6, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Hearing Date: 11/6/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV15720 JASON FRANKLIN, et al. vs PILEN GOMEZ, et al.

Moving Party: Defendant Pilen Gomez and Kevin Jablonski

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: DENIED

On May 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present case, with trial currently set for December 5, 2024. On October 1, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation to continue the trial, citing the following reasons:

1. Due to staffing issues, Wawanesa General Insurance transferred the case from its in-house counsel to outside trial counsel, Gina Y. Kandarian-Stein, with the substitution of attorney filed on August 27, 2024.

2. Substantial discovery remains, including Plaintiff’s deposition, medical record reviews, an independent medical examination, and depositions of treating physicians and experts.

3. Defense counsel, Gina Y. Kandarian-Stein, will be unavailable throughout December due to pre-paid vacation plans and holiday commitments.

On October 1, 2024, the Court previously denied the parties' stipulation to continue the trial, finding insufficient good cause. Defendants have now filed the present motion, restating the same arguments presented in the original stipulation and providing no new basis for the Court to alter its prior decision.

First, substitution of counsel, while noted, does not automatically establish good cause for a trial continuance. New counsel inherits a case with all pre-existing deadlines and obligations intact, and the substitution in this matter was finalized on August 27, 2024, providing ample time to prepare for the December 5, 2024 trial. The Court presumes that parties accept representation with full awareness of the case schedule, and substitution alone, particularly when several months remain before trial, does not justify delay.

Second, this case was filed on May 11, 2022, meaning it has been pending for over two and a half years. Pursuant to CRC 3.714, the Court has a duty to promote timely resolution and ensure civil cases conclude within two years where possible. This is a straightforward auto accident case with standard discovery, which should have been completed by this stage.

Lastly, while personal scheduling conflicts such as vacations and holidays are acknowledged, they are not compelling legal grounds for a continuance. Defense counsel's unavailability due to personal plans in December does not outweigh the Court’s obligation to manage its calendar efficiently, especially given that the substitution occurred well in advance, providing time for alternative scheduling or coverage. Courts must balance respect for counsel’s personal commitments with the paramount objective of resolving cases efficiently and fairly within statutory guidelines.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to continue trial is denied.

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.