Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV48114, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48114    Hearing Date: January 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

MOTION

Defendants and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Ray Chu, M.D. (collectively, Defendants) move to continue the trial, including all related discovery deadlines and motion cut-off dates, which is currently set for March 23, 2023, to September 20, 2023.  The remaining parties have not filed a motion in opposition.  Defendants attach a stipulation to the instant motion between Plaintiff Vanessa Guardado, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Hisela Rauda (Plaintiff), and Defendants agreeing to a trial continuance from March 27, 2023 to September 20, 2023.  On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff additionally filed a declaration in support of the motion to continue trial.  Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to continue trial on January 3, 2023.

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 continuance of trial to accommodate the complexity of the case and allow additional time to conduct a proper analysis of damages.  First, Defendants rely on the declaration of Defendants’ counsel, Lorrain Kim Hall (Counsel).  Counsel states that due to the complexity of the case the parties wish to reserve a qualified mediator such as Jay Horton who does not have any availability to mediate the matter before the current trial date.  (Declaration of Lorrain Kim Hall, ¶ 4.)  Further, Counsel states that she has a conflict and is unavailable for trial on the current trial date of March 27, 2023.  (Declaration of Lorrain Kim Hall, ¶ 5.)  Counsel explains that the instant action is complex medical malpractice made more complicated by Plaintiff’s pre-existing medical condition.  (Declaration of Lorrain Kim Hall, ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff filed a declaration on December 28, 2022, updating the Court with further complications of the case due to the recent discovery that an ERISA lien had been increased from $64,500 to $1,137,954.32.  (Declaration of Michael L. Oran, ¶ 5.)  Both Plaintiff and Defendants agree that this new update in the status of the case make the continuance of the trial more necessary.  (See Declaration of Michael L. Oran, ¶ 8; see also Defendants’ Reply in Support of the Motion to Continue Trial.)

Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has 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 March 27, 2023, is continued to September 27, 2023 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for March 13, 2023, is continued to  September 13, 2023 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 September 27, 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. 

   

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