Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV03620, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03620    Hearing Date: May 2, 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

On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff Willie Redmond (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) based on injuries Plaintiff alleges he sustained due to a dangerous condition of a sidewalk. On July 14, 2021, Plaintiff amended his complaint to include negligence and premises liability causes of action.

On July 22, 2021, Plaintiff substituted Defendants Brian L. Flowers and Rachel B. Flowers (collectively “Defendants”) as DOE Defendants. On September 3, 2021, the City filed a cross complaint for indemnity and contribution against ROES 1 to 20 and substituted Defendants as Cross-Defendants on October 21, 2021. On September 21, 2021, Brian Flowers filed a cross complaint for indemnity and contribution against the City.

Defendants move to continue trial in this matter, which is currently set for July 3, 2023 to November 6, 2023, with the final status conference and all discovery and motion cut-off dates 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.)¿ The factors to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial are:

(3)  The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; . . .

(6)  A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; . . . .

(1) The proximity of the trial date; 

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; 

(3) The length of the continuance requested; . . .

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; . . .  

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c) & (d).)

There is good cause to continue trial because trial counsel for Defendants is unavailable due to excusable circumstances and Defendants’ excused inability to obtain essential discovery. According to Defendants’ counsel, Emily Zin (“Zinn”), her wedding is scheduled for July 1, 2023 and will be out of the country on her honeymoon during the currently scheduled trial date of July 3, 2023. (Zinn Decl., ¶ 4.) Thus, there is good cause to continue trial due to trial counsel’s excused unavailability on the date of trial.

Additionally, Defendants recently substituted in their current counsel on February 15, 2023. According to Zinn, the parties recently attempted to mediate the claims on February 15, 2023, and now there is significant discovery to be completed. (Zinn Decl., ¶¶ 3, 6-9.) There is good cause to continue trial due to Defendants’ excused inability to obtain essential discovery.

Further, Defendants are requesting a four-month continuance and all parties are agreeable to the continuance. (Zinn Decl., Exh. A.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds Defendants have shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332.  Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

·         The trial date, currently set for July 3, 2023, is continued to November 29, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Department 32

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for June 19, 2023, is continued to November 15, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 32

·         All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the trial date of November 29, 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 give notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.