Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 22CHCV01103, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV01103, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01103 Hearing Date: September 11, 2024 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/11/24 TRIAL DATE: 2/24/25

Case #22CHCV01103

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Motion filed on 8/13/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Brian Avalos, Eva Sanchez Avalos and Alejandra Jimenez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Eddie Camargo and Ruth Pelayo aka Ruth Vasquez aka Ruth Camargo

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order continuing the current 2/24/25 trial date to 8/24/25 or another convenient date), and extending discovery to track the new trial date.

RULING: The motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on 11/13/20. Plaintiffs Brian Avalos, Eva Sanchez Avalos and Alejandra Jimenez (Plaintiffs) allege that Defendant Eddie Camargo (Eddie Camargo) caused the accident which resulted in Plaintiffs suffering personal injuries and property damage to Plaintiff Eva Sanchez Avalos (Eva Avalos). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Ruth Pelayo aka Ruth Vazquez aka Ruth Camargo (Ruth Pelayo) is one of or the only owner of the vehicle driven by Eddie Camargo and involved in the accident on 11/13/20.

On 11/8/22, Plaintiffs filed this action against Eddie Camargo and Ruth Pelayo for: (1) General

Negligence (against Eddie Camargo), (2) Motor Vehicle Negligence (against Eddie Camargo), (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Eddie Camargo), (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Eddie Camargo), (5) Permissive Use Statute Claim (Vehicle Code 17149) (against Ruth Pelayo), and (6) Negligent Entrustment (against Ruth Pelayo).

After Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to respond to Defendants’ counsel’s meet and confer efforts regarding issues Defendants had with the complaint, on 4/24/23, Defendants filed and served a demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and motion to strike which sought to strike the allegations regarding and the prayer for punitive damages in the complaint.

Plaintiffs did not oppose or otherwise respond to the demurrer and/or motion to strike. However, on 7/14/23, Plaintiffs dismissed their Fourth Cause of Action rendering the demurrer and the motion to strike as it related to the Fourth Cause of Action moot. The motion to strike also sought to strike allegations regarding/relating to punitive damages contained in the factual allegations common to all Causes of Action, the Second Cause of Action and the Third Cause of Action as well as the prayer for punitive damages in relation to the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action.

On 7/27/23, the Court granted the motion to strike without leave to amend and placed the demurrer off calendar as moot. (See 7/27/23 Minute Order).

On 2/26/24, the parties stipulated to continue the then 8/19/24 trial date. Within that stipulation, it was stated that Defendants intended to serve verifications and further responses to five sets of written discovery propounded by Plaintiffs. As a result, the Court ordered the trial date continued to 2/24/25 and ordered the discovery deadlines and cut-offs to correspond to the new trial date. (See 2/26/24 Stipulation & Order).

On 3/13/24, Defendants filed a Notice of Change of Handling Attorney. (See Notice filed 3/13/24). As of 8/13/24, Defendants have not served verifications or further responses. (See O’Hara Decl.). The current handling attorney for Defendants, Khelya Okunor, has failed to adequately respond to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s meet and confer efforts regarding the discovery responses, refused to stipulate to continue the current trial date and indicated that Defendants’ would likely oppose a motion to continue the trial date. (See O’Hara Decl.).

Therefore, on 8/13/24, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion seeking an order continuing the current 2/24/25 trial date to 8/24/25 or another convenient date), and extending discovery to track the new trial date. Defendants have not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

Upon a showing of good cause, a trial court should grant a request to continue the trial date. See CRC 3.1332; Lerma (2004) 120 CA4th 709, 716; Elkins (2007) 41 C4th 1337, 1364. A party’s excused inability to obtain essential discovery despite diligent efforts constitutes such good cause. See CRC 3.1332(c)(6).

Other factors the court must consider in determining whether to grant a continuance of the trial date are: “(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 to 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 3.1332(d).

As set forth in the unopposed motion, the Court finds that the foregoing factors weigh in favor of granting a trial continuance under the circumstances. (See Motion, p.7:12-p.9:3). Similarly, the Court finds that under the circumstances the discovery deadlines should correspond with the new trial date.

Granting the continuance will allow Plaintiffs sufficient time to have their discovery motions heard and, if granted, sufficient time for Defendants to provide further responses and Plaintiff to use such information to prepare for trial.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.

The Court notes that, at times, Plaintiffs failed to use the official report citation when citing cases. (See Motion, p.6:20-21 citation to Lerner, p.6:27 citation to Elkins). The parties are advised to use the official report citations in future briefs filed with the Court. See CRC 3.1113(c).