Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV22982, Date: 2025-05-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22982    Hearing Date: May 20, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

This is a motor vehicle negligence action arising out of a September 22, 2021, collision in which defendant Paul Kagan allegedly rear-ended a vehicle occupied by plaintiffs Hak Bong Kim and Kwi Sun Kim. Plaintiffs contend that Kagan was acting within the course and scope of his agency or employment with defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“SFMAIC”) at the time of the incident. On September 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this action asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, and loss of consortium.

Initially, both defendants Kagan and SFMAIC were represented by the same law firm. However, due to a conflict of interest arising from the agency allegations between Kagan and SFMAIC, SFMAIC retained separate counsel, Knapp Petersen & Clarke (“KPC”), who formally substituted into the case on February 14, 2025.

SFMAIC now moves to continue the current trial date of July 22, 2025, by approximately six months, to January 27, 2026. No opposition is filed.

As a predicate matter, the Court notes that California Rule of Court 3.714 directs that all civil unlimited trials should be completed within 2 years of the filing of the case.  This case was filed on September 25, 2023, so it is slightly less than 2 years old.  The requested continuance will cause it to be more than 2 years old at the time of trial.  Accordingly, while the Court grants the request, it notes that the parties should treat the new trial date as firm. The moving party has shown good cause for a trial continuance. With regard to the Court’s decision to grantt the continuance request, it does os based on the following:

First, SFMAIC’s lead trial counsel, Stephen Pasarow, is unavailable due to his engagement in three other trials scheduled to commence on July 17, July 21, and July 23, 2025, respectively, each expected to last 7 to 10 days. (Pasarow Decl., ¶2.)

Second, given that KPC only appeared in the case in mid-February 2025, it has had limited time to review prior discovery, evaluate the factual and legal issues, and develop an appropriate litigation strategy. The request for a trial continuance is reasonable, as newly retained counsel requires sufficient time to conduct discovery, assess expert needs, and prepare a motion for summary judgment addressing the core issue of agency.

Finally, the record shows no prejudice to Plaintiffs. On March 25, 2025, all parties entered into a stipulation to continue the trial by six months. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the motion, and there is no evidence of undue delay, tactical gamesmanship, or harm to Plaintiffs’ ability to prosecute their case. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

The new Trial Date is set for January 27, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. The Final Status Conference is continued to January 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.  All case-related deadlines will follow the new trial date. 

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. 

__________________________ 

Hon. Lee S. Arian  

Judge of the Superior Court