Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV16596, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16596    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 27

Complaint Filed:         5/19/2022

Trial Date:                   4/10/2024

Hon. Lee Arian

Department 27

Tentative Decision

Hearing Date:                         2/26/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case Name:                             MASON CLOUTIER VOSS; AND CHRISTINE CHAO VS. LAING YU; MILESTONE HOSPITALITY INC. DOES 1 TO 50

Case No.:                                22STCV16596

Motion:                                   MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND DISCOVERY AND EXPERT CUT-OFF DEADLINES

Moving Party:                         Defendant Laing Yu and Milestone Hospitality Inc

Responding Party:                   Unopposed

Notice:                                    Sufficient

Ruling:                                    DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND                                             ALL RELATED TRIAL DATES IS GRANTED.

Background 

Plaintiffs sustained injuries in an auto accident allegedly caused by Defendant Liang Yu, who was operating a vehicle leased from Defendant Milestone Hospitality. A complaint was filed on May 19, 2022, asserting two causes of action: motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

Plaintiffs had difficulties serving the Defendants; they were not served until July 20, 2023. An answer was filed by Defendants on August 17, 2023, but the trial date was already set for November 2, 2023. On September 15, 2023, the parties stipulated to continue the trial to April 10, 2024. Currently, Defendant seeks a further continuance of the trial to October 7, 2024, and requests that the Final Status Conference be to September 24, 2024. This motion is based on the defense's need of more time in securing Plaintiffs depositions and an Independent Medical Examination (IME). This motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard 

Per California Rules of Court (CRC), rule 3.1332, subdivision (c): the court may grant a continuance for “good cause,” which includes: (1) unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) substitution of trial counsel required in the interests of justice; (5) addition of a new party or other parties in regard to a new party’s involvement hasn’t had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; (6) party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which indicates the case is not ready for trial. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) 

Other relevant factors to be considered may include: “(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” (CRC Rule 3.1332(d).) 

“A trial court has great discretion in the disposition of an application for a continuance. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, the court’s determination will not be disturbed.” (Estate of Smith v. Atkinson (1973) 9 Cal.3d 74, 81.) “Such discretion is abused, however, where the lack of a continuance results in the denial of a fair hearing.” (Rankin v. Curtis (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 939, 947.) 

Discussion 

Good cause for the requested continuance is demonstrated. Given that Defendants were served on July 20, 2023 and an answer was filed on August 17, 2023, Parties did not have ample amount to conduct discovery. Defendants’ request for additional time to secure Plaintiff’s deposition and an Independent Medical Examination (IME) is understandable and constitutes good cause under CRC rule 3.1332(c)(6). Furthermore, there was only one prior continuance and the request for a six-month extension is also reasonable.

Conclusion 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to continue trial and all related trial dates is GRANTED.

The new Trial Date is set for [FATD 10/7/24] and the new Final Status Conference is set for ______.  Pre-trial cut-off dates are tied to the new trial date.