Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV08319, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08319    Hearing Date: August 10, 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 Bailey Moore sued defendant Sandi Korsen based on a vehicle-to-cyclist collision.  Defendant moves to continue trial, which is currently set for August 31, 2022, to January 2023, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to 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 time to complete necessary discovery.  According to counsel for Defendant, Brad D. Citron (“Citron”), Defendant has been unable to complete the deposition of Plaintiff as of the filing date of the motion.  (Declaration of Brad D. Citron, ¶¶ 4-7.)  Citron states that the completion of Plaintiff’s deposition is necessary to determine the course of Plaintiff’s medical care, ongoing complaints, and future treatment.  (Declaration of Brad D. Citron, ¶ 8.)  Citron also states that a physical examination of Plaintiff has been scheduled with Defendant’s orthopedic expert for the first available date of August 1, 2022.  (Declaration of Brad D. Citron, ¶ 9.)   

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 Defendant’s motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

• The trial date, currently set for August 31, 2022, is continued to May 10, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for August 17, 2022, is continued to April 26, 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 May 10, 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.