Judge: Margaret Miller Bernal, Case: 21STCV04176, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV04176 Hearing Date: August 5, 2022 Dept: SEF
PADILLA v. BROOKFIELD
HEALTHCARE CENTER
CASE
NO.: 21STCV04176
HEARING:
08/05/22
#7
TENTATIVE ORDER
Defendant
DOWNEY COMMUNITY CARE, LLC’s Motion to Continue Trial and Related Discovery
Dates is GRANTED in part.
Moving
Party to give Notice.
This
elder abuse and wrongful death action was filed by Plaintiffs CARMEN PADILLA;
LETICIA PADILLA; JOSE PADILLA; JESUS PADILLA; ISMAEL PADILLA; and ALFREDO
PADILLA (collectively “Plaintiffs”) on February 2, 2021.
Defendant
DOWNEY COMMUNITY CARE, LLC (“Defendant”) now moves to continue trial and the
related discovery and motion deadlines to April 24, 2023, or a date thereafter.
Trial is currently set for November 7, 2022. Defendant argues that a trial
continuance is necessary in order to allow the parties to conduct additional
necessary discovery, and to allow time for Defendant to file a Motion for
Summary Judgment: “The continuance is necessary and justified because discovery
is ongoing and Defendant requires more time to conduct depositions and written
discovery, file dispositive motions, and retain expert witnesses in order for
Defendant to adequately prepare for meaningful settlement negotiations and
prepare the case for trial. As it stands, the current trial date would force
Defendant to file a Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication on or before
Friday, July 22, 2022, without the deposition testimony of Plaintiffs and
decedent’s primary care physician.” (Ex Parte 2:15-20.) In Reply, Defendant
indicates that Plaintiffs’ depositions have been noticed for September 2022,
and that Defendant’s counsel is engaged in other trials throughout November
2022.
In
Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s Motion should be denied because
Defendant’s
need for a trial continuance is a result of its own dilatory conduct: “Defendant
has had approximately 18 months to conduct its discovery, engage experts and
prepare whatever motions it wished to file. In that time, Defendant has
conducted only one round of written discovery…. Since then, Defendant has
failed to notice or take any depositions, conduct any other discovery or engage
experts….” (Opp. 2:23-27.) Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has not
established good cause for a continuance, and that none of the discretionary
factors under Rule 3.1332(d) apply.
“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 case requiring the continuance. Circumstances that
may indicate good cause include…. (3) The unavailability of trial counsel
because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances… (6) A party’s
excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material
evidence despite diligent efforts.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)
The
Motion is GRANTED in part on the basis that Defendant’s trial counsel is
unavailable during the current trial date. The Court does not find, however,
that a six month continuance from November of 2022 to April 2023 is warranted. Importantly
the Motion is not granted to accommodate Defendant’s ambiguous desire to file a
Motion for Summary Judgment—to date, no Motion for Summary Judgment has been
filed, nor has a date for a Motion for Summary Judgment hearing been reserved.
In Sentry Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, the Court held
that it was an abuse of discretion for a trial court to refuse a trial
continuance to permit hearing a timely-filed motion for summary judgment. As it
stands, the facts of Sentry are distinguishable from the instant case.
A
continuance to a date sometime in January 2023 is reasonable (depending on the
Court and the parties’ availability). Based on counsel’s representations that
discovery is ongoing, the discovery cut-off is tied to the new trial date. The
Court will confer with counsel at the hearing in order to select new MSC (if
desired), FSC, and Trial dates.