Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV21627, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21627    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

MOTIONS

Defendants The Hertz Corporation and Jose Ribeiro (collectively, Defendants) move to continue the trial, which is currently set for April 18, 2023 and requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff Roxanne Houman (Plaintiff) filed a notice of joinder and non-opposition to the motion to continue trial. 

Additionally, Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.

ANALYSIS

1. Trial Continuance

 “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 continuance of trial to allow completion of discovery in light of the alleged difficulty of working with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel during the discovery process.  Defendant relies on the declaration of Defendants’ counsel, Delmas A. Woods (Counsel).  Counsel states that “[t]he instant motion was necessitated by Plaintiff’s unwillingness to engage in the discovery process and failure to appear for her deposition and/or meaningfully respond to Defendants counsel’s meet and confer efforts.”  (Declaration of Delmas A. Woods, ¶ 4.)  Counsel further explains that “Plaintiff has failed to appear for deposition on several occasions and continues to prevent the defendants from effectively investigating her claims for injuries and damages.”  (Declaration of Delmas A. Woods, ¶ 4.) 

Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants have shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.  But Defendants do not request a specific trial date or request that the Court set the trial after a period of time.  Instead, Plaintiff, in her joinder of motion, requests a continuance of 120 days.  Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s request.

With respect to Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions, the Court finds that there is no authority to grant such sanctions and Defendants have not advanced any authority for such sanctions to be awarded.  (See Defendants’ Motion, p. 9.) 

1. Deposition

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)   

Here, on July 14, 2022, Defendants served a notice of deposition, scheduling Plaintiff’s deposition for July 29, 2022.  (Declaration of Delmas A. Woods, ¶ 4, Exhibit A.)  But counsel for Plaintiff cancelled the deposition set on July 22, 2022.  (Id. at ¶ 5,  Exhibit B.)  Subsequently, after attempting to meet and confer with counsel for Plaintiff, Defendants served an  amended notice of deposition on September 13, 2022, scheduling Plaintiff’s deposition for September 28, 2022.  (Id. at ¶¶ 6-9, Exhibits C-F.)  On September 27, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff cancelled the deposition set on September 28, 2022.  (Id. at ¶ 10, Exhibit G.)  Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants agreed to proceed with Plaintiff’s deposition on November 1, 2022, but on October 28, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff cancelled the deposition set on November 1, 2022.  (Id. at ¶¶ 11-13, Exhibits H-J.) As of the filing date of the motion, Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition.

In opposition, Plaintiff notes that Plaintiff and Defendants agreed that Plaintiff’s deposition will take place on January 11, 2023.  (See Declaration of Julie A. Farrugia, Exhibit 6.)  Defendants have failed to submit a reply indicating whether the January 11, 2023 deposition proceeded as agreed.  Without further information regarding whether Plaintiff attended the January 11, 2023 deposition, the Court cannot determine whether a motion to compel is appropriate.  Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition as premature.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

• The trial date, currently set for February 10, 2023, is continued to June 16, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for January 26, 2023, is continued to June 5, 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 16, 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. 

              Further, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition for the reasons stated above.

   

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