Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 18STCV08756, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV08756    Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, and all other trial related deadlines, which is currently set for June 28, 2023, to a date in October or November of 2023.  Plaintiff Debra Ann Silva (Plaintiff) opposes the motion.  Defendant replies. 

ANALYSIS

 “Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”  (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)  A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.  (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.  Whether the parties have stipulated to the postponement is a relevant factor for consideration.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 595.2, but see Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753, 756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely “directory”].)  

Here, Defendant seeks a continuance of trial to allow Defendant time to investigate a car accident Defendant recently discovered Plaintiff was involved in which Plaintiff purportedly caused, and may have involved Plaintiff’s use of an amphetamine. 

Defendant advances the declaration of its counsel, Marc S. Lafer (Counsel), in support of the instant motion.  Counsel states that Plaintiff’s claims include the following: the accident at issue resulted in Plaintiff’s full psychological and psychiatric disability, and as of February 23, 2023, Plaintiff needs a total right knee replacement as a result of the accident.  (Declaration of Marc S. Lafer, ¶¶ 2-3.)  In Plaintiff’s response to interrogatories on both December 12, 2022, and February 10, 2023, Plaintiff stated under penalty of perjury that her injured right knee was injured in the incident at issue in this case and specifically denied having been involved in any subsequent accidents wherein she sustained injuries to the same body parts.  (Declaration of Marc S. Lafer, ¶ 4, Exhibits C and D.)  Defendant later learned Plaintiff was involved in a subsequent accident and subpoenaed Plaintiff’s relevant medical records which were produced for the first time on March 16, 2023.  (Declaration of Marc S. Lafer, ¶ 5.)   Defendant has now confirmed that Plaintiff was involved in a major motor vehicle accident on December 4, 2021, wherein Plaintiff was an unlicensed driver, driving without a seatbelt and struck a stopped vehicle.  (Declaration of Marc S. Lafer, ¶ 6.)  Further Counsel states that Plaintiff’s methamphetamine use may have been involved in the subsequent accident, and Plaintiff may have been addicted to methamphetamine from 1995 to 2007.  (Declaration of Marc S. Lafer, ¶ 8.) 

Plaintiff has failed to disclose the foregoing information throughout litigation.  (Declaration of Marc S. Lafer, ¶¶ 9-10.)  Counsel concludes that Defendant needs to ascertain the extent of Plaintiff’s right knee injury in order to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s injuries, as well apportion what injuries were a result of the incident at issue in this case, and the subsequent car accident. (Declaration of Marc S. Lafer, ¶ 17.)

In opposition, Plaintiff first argues that additional time to complete discovery on the subsequent vehicle accident is unnecessary because it is irrelevant.  Plaintiff states that she will no longer be claiming injury to her right knee as a result of the initial accident.  Plaintiff further explains that she notified Defendant that she was involved in a subsequent accident in her responses to Special Interrogatories, served on February 10, 2023.  Finally Plaintiff states that evidence of Plaintiff’s methamphetamine use at the time of the subsequent accident is unreliable and inadmissible.

In reply, Defendant again highlights its need to investigate Plaintiff’s subsequent injuries as they relate directly to the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s claimed damages.

Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants in part Defendant’s motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

·       The trial date, currently set for June 28, 2023, is continued to October 5, 2023 at 8:30 am in Department 32.

·       The Final Status Conference, currently set for June 14, 2023, is continued to September 20, 2023 at 10:00 am in Department 32.

·       All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the new trial date of October 5, 2023.

·       Per the Discovery Act, the parties shall meet and confer forthwith to schedule and complete all non-expert discovery and to prepare for the completion of expert discovery to obviate the need for a further continuance of the trial. 

·       No further continuance of the trial absent sufficient good cause. 

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.