Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV49699, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49699    Hearing Date: August 8, 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

MOTION

Plaintiff Alison Halem sued defendant L.A. Downtown Medical Center, LLC based on injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained under the treatment and care of Defendant.  Defendant moves to continue trial, which is currently set for October 19, 2022, until at least July 2023, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.

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 trial continuance to permit Defendant’s motion for summary judgment to be timely heard before trial.  According to counsel for Defendant, Aaron J. Weissman (“Weissman”), on April 14, 2022, Defendant reserved the first available date of June 22, 2023, for a hearing on its motion for summary judgment.  (Declaration of Aaron J. Weissman, ¶ 7.)  Weissman avers his office has attempted to work with Plaintiff’s counsel to stipulate to the continuance, but has been unable to reach an agreement. (Declaration of Aaron J. Weissman, ¶¶ 8-10, 13.)  Weissman states that there has been one prior continuance in the matter.  (Declaration of Aaron J. Weissman, ¶ 3.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant has failed to show good cause for a continuance.  Specifically, Plaintiff argues Defendant has been dilatory in seeking the continuance and that Plaintiff will be prejudiced by the continuance because “she is completely drained of financial resources and emotional capital” and “her only hope of avoiding even more harm and becoming destitute is a trial date in the reasonable future.”  Plaintiff suggests that it would be more appropriate for the Court to advance the hearing on the motion for summary judgment to a date no later than November 10, 2022, and continue trial to a date no later than January 9, 2023.  Plaintiff represents that she would be willing to waive the 75-day notice period and, instead, accept 60 days’ notice for Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Despite Plaintiff’s contentions, the Court finds Defendant has shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.  Due to its impacted calendar, the Court is unable to advance the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment at this time.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

• The trial date, currently set for October 19, 2022, is continued to September 1, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for October 5, 2022, is continued to August 17, 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 September 1, 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. 

   

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