Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV28953, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV28953    Hearing Date: January 19, 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

 

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

January 19, 2023

CASE NUMBER

19STCV28953

MOTION

Motion to Continue Trial

MOVING PARTIES

Defendant Renu Jivrajka, M.D.

OPPOSING PARTY

None

 

MOTION

 

Defendant Renu Jivrajka, M.D. (Defendant) moves to continue the trial to June 8, 2023, and to continue the Final Status Conference consistent with the new trial date.  The motion is unopposed and moreover, Plaintiffs Robert F. Ketcher and Lee Ann Ketcher filed a notice of joinder to the instant 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 continuance of trial to ensure that Defendants’ expert witness Dr. John Hofbauer, is available to testify at trial.  Defendant relies on the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Heidi L. Kjar (Counsel).  Counsel states that Defendant retained Dr. John Hofbauer, cataract surgeon to testify on her behalf at the time of trial.  (Declaration of Heidi L. Kjar, ¶ 4.)  Counsel notified Dr. Hofbauer that the trial was initially continued to April 18, 2023.  (Declaration of Heidi L. Kjar, ¶ 5.)  In response, Dr. Hofbauer reported that he will be out of the country and unavailable to testify from April 6-29, 2023.  (Declaration of Heidi L. Kjar, ¶ 6.). Plaintiffs have reported they also need a continuation of the trial date due to their experts’ availability and thus have agreed with Defendant on the new proposed trial date.  (Declaration of Heidi L. Kjar, ¶ 7.)

 

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 Defendant’s motion to continue trial and orders as follows: