Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV11188, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV11188 Hearing Date: April 9, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On April 1, 2022, Angela Phung (“Plaintiff”), by and through her guardian ad litem, Van Nguyen, filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) and Does 1-50 for negligence (Gov. Code, §§ 815.2, subd. (a), 820, subd. (a)), negligent supervision of students (Gov. Code, § 815.2, subd. (a)), and negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of employees (Gov. Code, §§ 815.2, subd. (a), 820, subd. (a)).
On April 5, 2022, the Court appointed Van Nguyen to act as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem.
On June 22, 2022, LAUSD filed an answer.
On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Defendant Veronica Guinez (“Guinez”) as Doe 1. On December 5, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Defendant Austyn Chade (“Chade”) as Doe 2.
On January 23, 2023, Guinez, representing herself, filed an answer in her individual capacity and purporting to act as guardian ad litem for Chade.
On November 14, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file and serve the first amended complaint within 10 days of the hearing on the motion.
The Court’s records do not show that Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. However, on December 18, 2023, LAUSD filed an answer to the first amended complaint.
On March 8, 2024, LAUSD filed a motion to continue trial to be heard on April 9, 2024. The motion is unopposed.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 29, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUEST
LAUSD asks the Court to continue trial to March 25, 2025.
LEGAL STANDARD
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.)
DISCUSSION
LAUSD asks the Court to continue the trial to March 25, 2025 because (1) LAUSD’s counsel has conflicts that would make them unavailable by the current trial date, (2) the parties are engaged in good faith settlement discussions, and (3) LAUSD needs additional time for a hearing on a motion for summary judgment. LAUSD does not ask the Court to continue or reopen discovery or related motion cut-off dates.
The Court finds good cause and continues the trial to March 25, 2025.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District to continue the trial. The Court continues the trial to March 25, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is continued to March 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Discovery and related dates will continue to be based on the April 29, 2024 trial date.
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.