Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV34501, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV34501    Hearing Date: December 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

December 20, 2022

CASE NUMBER

20STCV34501

MOTION

Motion to Continue Trial

MOVING PARTIES

Defendant City of Los Angeles

OPPOSING PARTY

Plaintiff Kelly Kaneko

 

MOTION

 

Defendant City of Los Angeles (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, which is currently set for January 12, 2023, for 90 days, or to the next available court date thereafter.  Plaintiff Kelly Kaneko (Plaintiff) opposes the motion.  Defendant replies.

 

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, Defendant seeks a continuance of trial to allow Defendant to properly prepare for trial given the unexpected interruptions in the Defendant’s trial preparation.  Defendant advances the declaration of Anthony M. Miera (Miera), who is the Managing Assistant City Attorney for Defendant City of Los Angeles.  Miera supervises Deputy City Attorneys (DCAs).  (Declaration of Anthony M. Miera, ¶ 1.)  Miera attests that the City Attorney’s office has not been fully staffed since the beginning of the COVID pandemic due to retirements, death, resignations, transfers and leaves of absences.  (Declaration of Anthony M. Miera, ¶ 2.). The recent death, retirements, and resignations of DCAs have occurred disproportionately among the ranks of more experienced DCAs.  (Declaration of Anthony M. Miera, ¶ 4.)  This case was originally assigned to a DCA who unexpectedly retired and during his tenure had gone on leave for medical and personal reasons, resulting in the neglect of many of the matters assigned to him.  (Declaration of Anthony M. Miera, ¶ 6.)  This case was then assigned to a DCA who was unable to give it the time it required due to multiple trial assignments she had scheduled,  in short order.  (Declaration of Anthony M. Miera, ¶ 7.)  Miera then assigned this case to DCA Joshua Quinones who after reviewing the matter advised that due to the complexity of the case, Defendant could not present an adequate defense at the trial presently scheduled for January of 2023.  (Declaration of Anthony M. Miera, ¶ 8.)  Miera concludes that Defendant will be severely prejudiced if the trial date is not continued.  (Declaration of Anthony M. Miera, ¶ 9.) 

Defendant then advances the declaration of their current counsel, Joshua A. Quinones (Counsel).  Counsel avers that he was transferred this case on October 25, 2022.  (Declaration of Joshua A. Quinones, ¶ 2.)  When this case was assigned to Counsel, there were no expert consultants or witnesses prepared to testify on the City’s behalf.  (Declaration of Joshua A. Quinones, ¶ 6.)  Counsel states that Defendant requires experts in the following disciplines in order to be prepared to present a defense at trial: orthopedic/hand surgery specialist; plastic/reconstructive surgery specialist; life care planning expert; economist expert to address economic loss claimed by Plaintiff; liability/animal shelter/dog bite expert.  (Declaration of Joshua A. Quinones, ¶ 6.). Counsel has diligently contacted expert witnesses in the disciplines identified, however has been so far only successful in retaining one.  (Declaration of Joshua A. Quinones, ¶ 9.)  Counsel was also severely ill with COVID-19 in the beginning of November, again delaying the trial preparation of Defendant. (Declaration of Joshua A. Quinones, ¶ 10.)  For the foregoing reasons Counsel concludes that Defendant cannot be ready to try the case on the scheduled date, and in the interests of justice, the trial date should be continued for 90 days.  (Declaration of Joshua A. Quinones, ¶ 3.)

 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has had over six months to have another attorney get up to speed on this case since the original DCA retired, but chose not to.  Plaintiff attests that Defendant’s confession that it does not feel ready for trial does not constitute good cause for a trial continuance.  Further Plaintiff states that she will be severely prejudiced if the case is continued for more than 30 days because Plaintiff’s counsel’s Spring 2023 trial schedule is severely impacted.  (Declaration of Ivan Puchalt, ¶ 4.). Plaintiff states that a trial continuance to the summer or fall would create financial and emotional hardship for Plaintiff, as she requires assistance and future medical procedures.  Plaintiff states she is aggregable to a 30-day trial continuance until the week of February 6, 2023.   

 

In reply, Defendant argues that because Plaintiff has resumed employment and has not personally paid out-of-pocket for her medical expenses, she will not be too severely prejudiced by a trial continuance.  Further Defendant notes that Plaintiff has not directly rebutted the fact that the City Attorney’s office has been unable to staunch the bleeding of reduced personnel.  These extenuating circumstances have resulted in an inability to properly prepare a defense for the case at hand and establishes good cause for a trial continuance. 

 

The Court finds Defendant has shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 based on Defendant’s recent and unexpected change in counsel, and its need to conduct further discovery. 

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 

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