Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV18116, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV18116 Hearing Date: March 6, 2024 Dept: 27
Complaint Filed: 6/2/2022
¿
Hon. Lee S. Arian¿
Department 27¿
Tentative Ruling
Hearing
Date: 3/6/2024
at 1:30 p.m.¿¿
Case
No./Name.: 22STCV18116 GEOFF LOUI, et al. vs STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.
Motion: Motion
to Continue Trial
Moving
Party: Defendant Caltrans
Responding
Party: Unopposed
Notice: Sufficient¿¿
¿¿
Ruling: DEFENDANT
CALTRANS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS GRANTED
Background
On June 2, 2022, Plaintiffs Geoff Loui and Rich
Hirchinger filed a personal injury lawsuit based on general negligence and
premises liability stemming from an alleged accident that occurred near Pacific
Coast Highway. On October 28, 2022,
Defendant Caltrans filed its answer. The trial was originally scheduled for
November 30, 2023, but has since been continued once to the current trial date
of April 5, 2024. Defendant Caltrans now moves for another continuance because it
has become aware of the possible involvement of the Los Angeles Department of
Public Works (Public Works) and it intends to file a cross-complaint and
prepare its case against Public Works once the trial date has been continued.
Furthermore, Defendant Caltrans contends that its trial counsel for this case,
Mr. Arthur Javier, unexpectedly fell ill and has been placed on medical leave.
This motion for a continuance is unopposed.
Legal Standard
Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of
civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).) Continuances are
thus generally disfavored. (See Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (b).)
Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates. (Hernandez
v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.) Each request for
continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an
affirmative showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd.
(c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.)
Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:
(1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death,
illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party
due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability
of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4)
the substitution of trial counsel where there is an affirmative showing that
the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) the addition of a
new party if (A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct
discovery and prepare for trial, or (B) the other parties have not had a
reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to
the new party’s involvement in the case; (6) a party’s excused inability to
obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite
diligent efforts; or (7) 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, subd. (c).)
The court must also consider such relevant factors
as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous
continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by 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. (Id., rule 3.1332, subd.
(d).)
Analysis and Conclusion
The complaint in this case was filed on June 2,
2022, less than two years ago. To date, there has been only one continuance.
Defendant Caltrans alleges that following an internal investigation, it became
aware of the Public Works’ potential involvement in the matter and intends to
file a cross-complaint against Public Works once the trial is continued. Given
the current trial date, Defendant Caltrans would not have a reasonable
opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial regarding Public Works'
involvement, nor would Public Works have ample time to answer and defend the
action. Thus, good cause exists for a
continuance of the trial under California Rule of Court 3.1332(c)(5)(B). The
discovery of Public Works' involvement and potential liability concerning
Plaintiff's cause of harm represents a significant, unanticipated change in the
status of this case. Furthermore, no party has opposed the motion. Thus, good cause is demonstrated, and the new
trial date is hereby rescheduled for April 25, 2025, at 8:30 a.m..
¿¿¿
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 without leave.¿¿¿¿¿