Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV05857, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05857    Hearing Date: October 4, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff Jeffrey Volpei (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for dangerous condition of public property (Gov. Code, §§ 830.6, 835) and dangerous condition of public property—failure to warn (Gov. Code, §§ 830.8, 835). 

On April 21, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant County of Los Angeles filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Tomas Hernandez (“Hernandez”) and Roes 1-50 for implied indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. On June 29, 2022, Hernandez filed an answer. 

On October 31, 2022, the Court granted Hernandez’s motion for a determination that his settlement with Plaintiff was in good faith and denied the motion of Defendant/Cross- Complainant County of Los Angeles for a finding that the settlement was not in good faith. 

On January 31, 2023, the Court dismissed Hernandez from the cross-complaint with prejudice at the request of Defendant/Cross-Complainant County of Los Angeles. 

On September 7, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to continue the trial and all related dates to be heard on October 4, 2023. 

Trial is currently scheduled for December 12, 2023. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Defendant requests that the Court continue the trial and all related dates. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b), provides that “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.” 

          Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), the Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts,” or the unavailability of a party, counsel, or expert due to death, illness or other excusable circumstance. The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) 

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.) 

DISCUSSION 

Defendant requests that the Court continue the trial because Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s written discovery and because Defendant could not reserve a date for a hearing on a summary judgment motion until May 14, 2024, which is after the currently-scheduled trial date. 

The Court finds good cause to grant the request to continue the trial and continues the trial to July 29, 2024. 

Defendant also asks the Court to continue all related discovery and motion deadlines to trail the new trial date.  Although Defendant’s motion does not cite Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, the statute governs the Court’s consideration of requests to continue or reopen discovery.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (b) [“Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings”].) 

A motion to reopen discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 must be “accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)  “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) 

The declaration that accompanies Defendant’s motion does not show that Defendant has attempted to resolve the issue of continuing or reopening discovery with Plaintiff or that Defendant has addressed this issue with Plaintiff.  Because Defendant’s motion does not comply with the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (a), to provide a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, the Court denies the request to continue or reopen discovery. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant County of Los Angeles to continue the trial.  Trial is continued to July 29, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The Final Status Conference is July 15, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

The Court DENIES the request of Defendant County of Los Angeles to continue or reopen discovery without prejudice. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.