Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV26272, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV26272 Hearing Date: January 9, 2024 Dept: 27
Antonio Romo Garcia v. Emanate Health Medical Center
January 9, 2024 |
[UNOPPOSED]
Motion – Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Dates
TENTATIVE
Defendant Emanate Health Queen of the Valley Hospital’s Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Dates is GRANTED.
Background
This case stems from a slip and fall incident where Antonio Romo Garcia (“Plaintiff”) was visiting Emanate Health Queen of the Valley Hospital (“Defendant”, erroneously sued as Emanate Health Medical Center) when Plaintiff slipped on a wet substance, causing him to fall and allegedly suffer a fractured left ankle, partial amputation of his left foot, left knee pain, an ulcer, and an infection. (Complaint, ¶ GN-1.)
Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on August 12, 2022. Defendant now files a Motion to Continue Trial (“Motion”).
Discussion
Legal Standard
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation):
(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only 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.
(Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)¿¿¿
The court may also consider the following factors: “(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 3.1332(d).)¿¿ ¿
Analysis
Defendant argues that trial should be continued primarily on the basis that through no fault of its own, it has not been able to conduct meaningful discovery. Plaintiff initiated the case on August 12, 2022, but did not serve Defendant until July 13, 2023. (Motion, 9:26-28.) Trial is currently scheduled for February 9, 2024. Since being served, Defendant has answered the Complaint and served discovery on Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to discovery and has made numerous requests for extensions. (Declaration of Pamela Hayati, ¶ 6.) A deposition was also noticed upon Plaintiff, however, due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s unavailability the deposition has been postponed to an unknown date. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Moreover, after exchanging correspondences, the parties agreed to continue trial, however, no stipulation was ever filed with the Court because Plaintiff’s counsel sent a draft in an unreadable format, and never followed up with Defense counsel after being notified of the error. (Id. at ¶ 17.)
This is the first request for a continuance and Defendant has demonstrated good cause. Without an opportunity to conduct meaningful discovery, a party would be prejudiced come trial. Additionally, Defendant contends that they will not have sufficient time to prepare a summary judgment motion, which if filed timely must be heard by right. (See CCP § 437c.) Here, there is no reasonable alternative solution with trial fast approaching, no party would be prejudiced by a continuance, the Motion is unopposed, and it is in the interests of justice to continue the trial date. Therefore, the Motion is granted.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendant Emanate Health Queen of the Valley Hospital’s Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Dates is GRANTED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.