Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV22076, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV22076    Hearing Date: July 25, 2022    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

Plaintiffs Erick Rojas and Maria Perez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued defendant Pedro Barrera based on a motor vehicle collision.  Defendant moves to continue trial, which is currently set for August 3, 2022, to January 17, 2023, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the motion.

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 trial continuance due to the unavailability of counsel for Defendant for the presently scheduled trial date and to permit Defendant time to complete necessary discovery.  According to counsel for Defendant, Courtney D. Flannery (“Flannery”), Defendant’s case was recently transferred to Flannery on June 20, 2022, after a different attorney in her office had been handling the case.  (Declaration of Courtney D. Flannery, ¶ 10.)  Flannery states that she requires time to prepare Defendant’s case for trial, and is unavailable for the current trial date due to trials scheduled in other matters in July through December 2022.  (Ibid.) 

Flannery also states that her office has noticed an orthopedic examination of Plaintiff for the earliest available date of June 22, 2022, and a neurological examination for June 28, 2022.  (Declaration of Courtney D. Flannery, ¶ 11.)  Flannery avers that, as of the filing date of the motion, it is unclear whether Plaintiff will either stipulate to a second examination or require Defendant to file a motion for leave.  (Declaration of Courtney D. Flannery, ¶ 12.)  Finally, Flannery states that Defendant will require additional time to conduct any follow-up discovery after Plaintiff’s examination(s), and that, as of the filing date of the motion, Defendant has yet to receive responses from Plaintiff to certain written discovery requests.  (Declaration of Courtney D. Flannery, ¶¶ 13-16.) 

Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant’s need to conduct additional necessary discovery constitutes good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

• The trial date, currently set for August 3, 2022, is continued to January 30, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for July 20, 2022, is continued to January 18, 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 January 30, 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 orders and file a proof of service of such.