Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV17842, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV17842 Hearing Date: March 4, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 11, 2020, Plaintiffs Sharon Luong (“Luong”) and Chris Lam (“Lam”) filed this action against Defendants Anna Monroy, Nicholas Monroy, and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle tort and loss of consortium.
The Court initially scheduled the trial for November 8, 2021. On October 25, 2021, the Court advanced and vacated the November 8, 2021 trial date on its own motion.
On November 4, 2021, Defendants Anna Monroy and Nicholas Monroy ("Defendants") filed an answer.
On January 24, 2022, the Court set the trial for January 5, 2023.
On July 28, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to continue the trial.
On August 30, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to continue the trial and continued the trial from January 5, 2023 to June 30, 2023, with discovery and related dates to trail the new trial date.
On May 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed another ex parte application to continue the trial, asserting that Plaintiffs’ counsel had lost contact with Luong and needed additional time to complete expert discovery. On May 24, 2023, the Court denied the ex parte application but continued the trial from June 30, 2023 to August 14, 2023. The Court stated that Plaintiffs would need to file a noticed motion if they wished to seek a longer continuance.
On June 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to continue the trial for six months, stating that Luong was “unfit for trial due to mental health issues for which she is actively seeking medical care.” The motion also stated that Plaintiffs’ counsel had lost direct contact with Luong, Luong’s doctor had recommended surgery for Leung’s chronic pain, and Luong was not prepared to go proceed with the surgery due to her mental condition. On June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to advance the hearing or to continue the trial. On July 3, 2023, the Court continued the trial from August 14, 2023 to November 9, 2023, with discovery and related dates to trail the new trial date. The Court left the motion filed June 14, 2023 on calendar to be heard on August 7, 2023.
On August 7, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the Court that he had established indirect communication with Luong but could not be ready for trial until February 2024. The Court granted the motion and continued the trial from November 9, 2023 to March 1, 2024, with discovery and related dates to trail the new trial date.
On February 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to continue the trial and all related dates, to be heard on March 4, 2024, as well as an ex parte application to shorten time to hear the motion or to continue the trial. The Court continued the trial from March 1, 2024 to April 19, 2024, with discovery and related dates to trail the new trial date, and left the motion to continue the trial on calendar for March 4, 2024. On February 20, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition. On February 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 19, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiffs ask the Court to continue trial and related dates for six months.
Defendants ask the Court to deny the motion. If the Court continues the trial, Defendants ask the Court to order that only the depositions of previously designated experts will trail the new trial date.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Request to continue trial
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 provides:
“(a) Trial dates are firm
“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.
“(b) Motion or application
“A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.
“(c) Grounds for continuance
“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:
“(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.
“(d) Other factors to be considered
“In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These 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.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.)
B. Request to continue or reopen discovery
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 provides:
“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.
“(b) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 provides:
“(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:
“(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.
“(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.
“(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.
“(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.
“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 provides: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue that Luong is unfit for trial due to mental health issues and did not communicate with her counsel from April 21, 2023, through January 8, 2024. On January 9, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel reestablished direct contact with Luong. On January 27, 2024, Luong was admitted to a hospital for pain. On February 6, 2024, Luong’s treating neurosurgeon recommended updated MRI studies of Luong’s cervical spine, lumbar spine, and left shoulder because Luong’s symptoms have been worsening. According to Plaintiffs, Luong needs additional time to improve her mental health condition and Plaintiffs’ counsel needs additional time to fully evaluate Luong’s ongoing medical and mental health issues and meaningfully prepare for trial.
In a declaration submitted with Plaintiffs’ reply, Plaintiffs’ counsel states that the parties cannot evaluate the true extent of Luong’s damages until (1) after Luong has decided what future medical treatment to pursue and (2) after Luong obtains expert workups from a life care planner, a vocational rehabilitation specialist, and an economist. Counsel anticipated that “complete expert workup will take approximately 90 days.”
Defendants argue the case has already been continued multiple times, Plaintiffs have not provided enough information to establish good cause for a continuance, and a continuance will prejudice Defendants.
The
Court finds good cause and continues the trial to August 26, 2024. By this time, Plaintiffs should have obtained the expert workups they need and Luong should have decided on her future medical treatment.
The Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs’
request to reopen discovery. Plaintiffs
did not provide a meet and confer declaration.
(See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) In addition, Plaintiffs have not explained why
they did not initiate the expert workups from a life care planner, a vocational
rehabilitation specialist, and an economist in August 2023 when Plaintiffs’
counsel established indirect communication with Luong. However, as Defendants request, the Court orders
that the depositions of previously designated experts will trail the new trial
date.
The Court will grant no further continuances without a compelling showing of good cause.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS IN PART the motion to continue trial filed by Plaintiffs Sharon Luong and Chris Lam and continues the trial to August 26, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is August 12, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
The Court DENIES without prejudice the motion of Plaintiffs Sharon Luong and Chris Lam to reopen discovery.
The Court ORDERS that depositions of previously-designated expert witnesses and related motion cut-off dates will be based on the new trial date.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.