Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV17716, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17716    Hearing Date: August 15, 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 Alma Sirin sued defendants DIS Transportation, LLC and Viscael Plata (collectively, “Defendants”) based on a motor vehicle collision.  Defendants move to continue trial, which is currently set for November 21, 2022, to May or June 2023, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Plaintiff 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, Defendants seek a trial continuance to permit Defendants time to complete necessary discovery.  Specifically, Defendants seek to submit Plaintiff to a second independent medical examination.  According to counsel for Defendant, Michael M. Yerzinkyan (“Yerzinkyan”), Plaintiff’s treating physician recommended on January 21, 2022, that Plaintiff undergo two cervical spinal surgeries.  (Declaration of Michael M. Yerzinkyan, ¶ 3.)  Yerzinkyan states that Plaintiff underwent an independent medical examination on August 26, 2021, with Dr. Ilan Danan, who is a neurologist, and was not recommended for spinal surgeries at that time.  (Declaration of Michael M. Yerzinkyan, ¶ 4.)  Yerzinkyan avers that Plaintiff’s counsel has not agreed to submit Plaintiff to a second independent medical examination, necessitating a motion to compel a second independent medical examination of Plaintiff.  (Declaration of Michael M. Yerzinkyan, ¶ 6.)  Yerzinkian avers that the hearing on Defendants’ motion to compel a second independent medical examination of Plaintiff is scheduled to be heard on November 17, 2022, which was the first-available date at the time of reservation.  (Ibid.) 

Accordingly, 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 November 21, 2022, is continued to June 23, 2023  at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for November 7, 2022, is continued to June 8, 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 June 23, 2023.

• Per the Discovery Act, the Court orders the parties to 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 proof of service of such.