Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21STCV41940, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41940    Hearing Date: January 22, 2025    Dept: F

KIM ET AL. v. PARK ET AL.

CASE NO.: 21STCV41940

HEARING:  January 22, 2024 @ 10:30 a.m.

#25

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants’ Motion for an Order to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

Defendants to give notice.

Background

This is a child sexual assault action. On November 15, 2021, Plaintiff Erica Jim, Guardian Ad Litem for, Tayler Kim, minor (Plaintiff”) filed this action against Yejun Park, a minor, Mi Sug Park (amended to Hoon Park), Chan Kil Park (amended to Younggeun Choi), Student Learning Center, Hanna Seung Eun Ahn,  Diana Chong, Austin Sim, and Does 1 to 50. On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC). The FAC alleges Defendant Yejun sexually assaulted Plaintiff Tayler Kim when they attended Student Learning Center, a youth summer camp program. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action:

1.    Sexual Assault and Battery

2.    Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

3.    Negligence Per Se

4.    Gross Negligence

5.    Parental Negligence

6.    Negligent Supervision

7.    Premise Liability - Unsafe Condition

8.    Breach of Contract

9.    Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Trial is set for March 13, 2025. Defendants Hannah Seung Eun Ahn, Diana Chong, and Austin Sim (“Defendants”) have a Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for July 9, 2025, and a Motion for Leave to Notice a Mental Examination of Plaintiff scheduled for September 11, 2025.

Defendants now move to continue trial at least 90 days after September 11, 2025, so such motions may be resolved. An opposition and reply has been filed.

Legal Standard

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts. . .”

The Court, in making its determination to continue the trial should 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 unavailability 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).)

Discussion

Defendants initially note that Plaintiff delayed her deposition, causing Defendants to file a Motion to Compel. Once Plaintiff was deposed in December 2024, Defendants learned new information, included information regarding identification of potential witnesses. Defendants argue good cause exists to continue trial because Defendants have determined their pending Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Leave to Notice a Mental Examination are appropriate in light of the new information learned from her deposition. Defendants argue they filed their Motions as soon as they could, but the earliest dates they could reserve were after the trial date. Defendants further argue they have a statutory right to file a Motion for Summary Judgment.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendants have no excusable justification for their delay in filing the Motions. Plaintiff further argues Defendants did not filed a motion to reopen discovery in accordance with CCP § 2024.050. Lastly, Plaintiff argues that trial has been continued twice, and Plaintiffs will be prejudiced if trial is continued once more.

In reply, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s deposition, which revealed new information, was delayed by no fault of Defendants. Defendants moved ex parte to continue trial on March 11, 2024 because the Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition was set for hearing on April 11, 2024, very close to the April 22, 2024 trial date. Trial was continued to October 22, 2024. (See 3/12/24 Minute Order.) The hearing on the Motion to Compel was continued by the Court multiple times. The Court eventually granted the Motion to Compel on October 7, 2024. (See 10/7/24 Minute Order). Plaintiff further delayed her deposition, which was not completed until December 11, 2024. During this time, the parties jointly stipulated to another to another trial continuance to March 13, 2025, the current trial date. Therefore, the previous trial continuances were not due to Defendants’ delay. Defendants argue that the new information learned at Plaintiff’s deposition constitutes an unanticipated change in the status of the case, warranting a trial continuance.

The Court finds Defendants are entitled resolve their Motions upon learning new information from Plaintiff’s deposition. Further, the Court finds Plaintiff has not proven she will be prejudiced by another continuance.

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial. The Court will confer with the parties to select a new trial and final status conference date. Discovery and all trial deadlines will track the new trial date.