Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV31534, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31534    Hearing Date: September 20, 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

 

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

September 20, 2022

CASE NUMBER

20STCV31534

MOTION

Motion to Continue Trial

MOVING PARTY

Defendant OCBSM Owner, LLC

OPPOSING PARTY

None

 

MOTION

 

Plaintiff Jod Joseph Soraci sued defendant OCBSM Owner, LLC (“OCBSM”) based on injuries Plaintiff alleges he sustained when Plaintiff’s bicycle collided with a car door that defendant Edward Tendio opened into the traffic lane.  OCBSM moves to continue trial, which is currently set for October 21, 2022, to April 24, 2023, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  The motion is unopposed.  

 

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, OCBSM seeks a continuance to permit the parties time to complete necessary discovery and attend mediation.  According to counsel for Defendant, Meena C. Nachiappan (“Nachiappan”), Plaintiff testified at deposition on March 31, 2022, that he had treated with medical providers not previously disclosed in written discovery.  (Declaration of Meena C. Nachiappan, ¶ 5.)  Nachiappan states that Plaintiff is still treating for injuries related to the subject collision and is schedule to undergo left shoulder and back surgery by October 2022.  (Declaration of Meena C. Nachiappan, ¶ 8.)  Nachiappan also states that the parties have reserved the first available date of October 4, 2022, for mediation with Judge Schnegg.  (Declaration of Meena C. Nachiappan, ¶ 7.)  Finally, Nachiappan avers that the parties have stipulated to the proposed continuance.  (Declaration of Meena C. Nachiappan, ¶ 10, Exhibit A.) 

 

The Court finds OCBSM has shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 

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