Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV22340, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22340    Hearing Date: July 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

BACKGROUND

This personal injury action is based on an accident that occurred in connection with a construction project on June 15, 2018. Plaintiff Paul Herrera alleges having sustained injuries from the subject accident, while Plaintiff Chrissy Romo-Herrera, spouse of Plaintiff Paul Herrera, alleges a loss of consortium claim in connection therewith.

On July 12, 2020, Plaintiffs Paul Herrera and Chrissy Romo-Herrera (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action’s Complaint against Defendant FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. (“Vanguard”).[1]

On March 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Doe Amendment to the Complaint naming Ames Construction, Inc. (“Ames”) as a Defendant.

On April 7, 2023, following a motion from Vanguard, the Court continued the trial date of this action from May 5, 2023 to August 8, 2023, but did not reset the corresponding discovery deadlines.

On May 22, 2023, Ames filed a Cross-Complaint for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief against unidentified Roe Cross-Defendants.

On June 16, 2023, Ames filed the instant motion to continue trial and related dates.[2] On June 29, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of joinder to the motion. On June 29, 2023, Vanguard filed a notice of joinder and limited opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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”].)

DISCUSSION

            Ames requests a continuance of trial and a reset of trial related deadlines, including discovery, on the grounds that it was only named as Defendant in this action on March 16, 2023, and at the time Ames made its first appearance in the action, the deadlines to serve written discovery, serve notices of depositions, and serve a motion for summary judgment had already expired. Vanguard does not oppose the continuance of the trial date, but it does oppose the reopening of discovery between Plaintiffs and Vanguard, contending that the Court already ruled on this issue based on Vanguard’s own recent motion to continue trial. Vanguard further argues that it opposes the reopening of discovery and related deadlines between itself and Plaintiffs, arguing that it would be prejudiced if such Plaintiffs were given another bite at the apple in this regard.

            The Court finds that Ames has demonstrated good cause warranting a continuance of the trial date. Ames was only added to this action a few months ago and has not had any meaningful opportunities to conduct discovery and thereby prepare its defense in this action. Ames would be unduly prejudiced if it were forced to go to trial without having been able to conduct any discovery.

            The Court further disagrees with Vanguard’s limited opposition. While the Court’s April 7, 2023 order continuing trial did not reset any trial related deadlines, such as discovery, it expressly noted that the reason it did not do so was because Vanguard had not requested any such deadlines be reset. (Minute Order (4/7/2023) fn. 1 [“Here, Defendant did not request to continue or reset the discovery and pre-trial motion cut off dates in accordance with a new trial date.”].) Ames has specifically requested that such dates be reset.

Moreover, Vanguard’s contention that it would be prejudiced is conclusory, as Vanguard provided no facts demonstrating how it would be prejudiced if all discovery deadlines were reopened in this matter. The Court also finds it would also be unnecessarily difficult administratively to prohibit resetting the discovery deadlines between Plaintiffs and Vanguard while simultaneously permitting discovery to proceed as between Ames on the one hand and Plaintiffs and Vanguard on the other. Also discovery related to Ames may lead to the need for additional discovery between Plaintiffs and Vanguard.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

·         The trial date, currently set for August 8, 2023, is continued to March 19, 2024 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for July 24, 2023, is continued to March 5, 2024 at 10:00 A.M. in Department 32.

·         All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the new trial date of March 19, 2024.

·         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. 

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