Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV10365, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV10365    Hearing Date: August 9, 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 David Seung Soo Lee, as successor in interest to Sun Hui (“Decedent”), sued defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority based on a vehicle-to-pedestrian collision between Decedent and a vehicle owned and operated by Defendant.  Plaintiff moves to continue the trial, which is currently set for October 3, 2022, to April 24, 2023, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Defendant has 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, Plaintiff seeks a trial continuance due to the unavailability of counsel for Plaintiff, Matthew B. Herrell (“Herrell”).  According to Herrell, he is set for trial in one case on September 14, 2022, and another on October 18, 2022, which he believes will overlap with trial in this case.  (Declaration of Matthew B. Herrell, ¶ 4.)  Herrell also states that Decedent’s death – which occurred on July 20, 2021 – has “complicated the matter of obtaining all of her records relevant to the case and in presenting her case at trial.”  (Declaration of Matthew B. Herrell, ¶ 5.)  Finally, Herrell avers that counsel for Defendant is not opposed to the continuance to the proposed date of April 24, 2023.  (Declaration of Matthew B. Herrell, ¶ 6.) 

The Court finds Defendant has not shown good cause for a trial continuance to April 2023 pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.  In particular, the Court does not find Defendant’s position that another attorney in the firm of McMillan & Herrell is unavailable or cannot be assigned to the case and prepare for trial either on October 3, 2022, or at later date, within reason, if said attorney needs additional time to prepare.  In addition, Herrell fails to provide specific information about why obtaining the decedent’s records have been problematic and what efforts have been accomplished or underway to obtain such records in a timely manner. 

The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial without prejudice.  The Court notes that the parties may file a stipulation to continue the trial, provided that sufficient good cause is established.  Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.