Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV36363, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV36363    Hearing Date: April 10, 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 Darla Bowman (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, and all other trial related deadlines, which is currently set for May 8, 2023, to a date in November 2023.  Plaintiff John M.G. Doe (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, Defendant seeks a continuance of trial to allow newly substituted counsel for Defendant, Jeanne Zimmer (Counsel), to become familiar with the facts, review discovery and pleadings, meet with witnesses, determine what additional discovery needs are and prepare for mediation and trial.  Defendant relies on the declaration of Counsel who states she was substituted in as Defendant’s attorney on March 3, 2023.  (Declaration of Jeanne L. Zimmer, ¶ 3.)  Counsel states she is not available on the current trial date and days following due to a preplanned professional seminar out of state in South Carolina.  (Declaration of Jeanne L. Zimmer, ¶ 4.)  Counsel avers that in addition to needing time to familiarize herself with the case, she argues that a trial continuance would allow the scheduling of a mediation and potential resolution of the matter without trial.  (Declaration of Jeanne L. Zimmer, ¶¶ 5-6.)  Counsel states that based on the current trial date, discovery is cut off on March 13 and she will not have sufficient time to investigate this matter and conduct discovery, including any additional depositions, schedule an IME, or obtain relevant medical or other records.  (Declaration of Jeanne L. Zimmer, ¶¶ 7, 9.)  Counsel thus concludes that defendant will be severely prejudiced if the trial and related discovery dates are not continued.  (Declaration of Jeanne L. Zimmer, ¶¶ 10-11.)

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has failed to show good cause as to why trial all related dates should be continued with the trial date.  Plaintiff avers that both parties have already designated experts, and certain expert depositions are already set to take place.  Thus continuing all dates would cause unnecessary expense on the parties for the expert depositions already set.  Further Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to show that their inability to obtain outstanding discovery was despite diligent efforts.  Plaintiff highlights that Defendant has failed to represent why Defendant has yet to obtain an IME or other necessary discovery, and why it is seeking such discovery on the eve of trial.  Further Plaintiff represents that Defendant’s previous counsel has already completed substantial discovery including depositions of two of Plaintiff’s treating physicians, Plaintiff’s legal guardians, and has engaged in written discovery.

Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has in part shown good cause for a trial continuance, under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, to permit counsel for Defendant time to prepare for the final status conference and trial.  However, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to show good cause to continue the trial to November 2023 and for the extension of discovery deadlines.[1]

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

·         The trial date, currently set for May 8, 2023, is continued to June 23, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for April 24, 2023, is continued to June 8, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

·         All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall remain the same, based on the previous trial date of May 8, 2023.

·         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.