Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV29981, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV29981    Hearing Date: July 26, 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

Plaintiff Victoria Kim sued defendants Textron, Inc. and E-Z-GO Division of Textron, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) based on injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained when she was struck by a golf cart owned and controlled by Defendants.  Defendants move to continue trial, which is currently set for October 28, 2022, to April 28, 2023, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Plaintiff opposes 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, Defendants seek a trial continuance to permit Defendants time to complete necessary discovery and have their motion for summary judgment timely heard before trial.  According to counsel for Defendants, Jennifer Estrada (“Estrada”), Plaintiffs named Defendants in this action via Doe Amendment on April 7, 2022, and served Defendants with the summons and complaint on April 11, 2022.  (Declaration of Jennifer Estrada, ¶¶ 5-6, Exhibit D.)  Estrada states Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on May 23, 2022.  (Declaration of Jennifer Estrada, ¶ 7, Exhibit E.)  Estrada states that, because they have recently been added to this litigation, Defendants require more time to conduct necessary discovery, prepare for trial, and preserve their right to file a motion for summary judgment than the presently scheduled trial date will allow.  (Declaration of Jennifer Estrada, ¶¶ 8-11.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendants have failed to show good cause for a continuance.  Specifically, Plaintiff argues Defendants “did not bother” to draft, file, and serve their proposed motion for summary judgment before the deadline based on the current trial date. Plaintiff argues Defendants possess Plaintiff’s testimony from the discovery already conducted by the other parties to the action, which Plaintiff contends is sufficient for Defendants to bring their proposed motion for summary judgment within the present statutory deadline.  Plaintiff asserts she will be prejudiced by the requested continuance because any new trial date will likely be beyond the third anniversary of the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint.

Despite Plaintiff’s contentions, the Court finds Defendants have shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

• The trial date, currently set for October 28, 2022, is continued to May 1, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for October 14, 2022, is continued to April 17, 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 May 1, 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. 

   

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