Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV14815, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14815    Hearing Date: September 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

September 20, 2022

CASE NUMBER

21STCV14815

MOTION

Motion to Continue Trial

MOVING PARTIES

Defendants Alejandra De La Trinidad and Salvador Acevedo, Jr.

OPPOSING PARTY

Plaintiffs Patrick Gray and Paige Gray

 

MOTION

 

Plaintiffs Patrick Gray and Paige Gray, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Patrick Gray, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued defendant Alejandra De La Trinidad and Salvador Acevedo, Jr.  (collectively, “Defendants”) based on a motor vehicle collision.  Defendants move to continue trial, which is currently set for October 18, 2022, to a date after January 18, 2023, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Plaintiffs oppose 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, Defendants seek a continuance to permit Defendants time to complete necessary discovery.  According to counsel for Defendant, Eric L. Anderson (“Anderson”), on July 1, 2022, Defendants reserved the first available date of January 18, 2023, for a hearing on its motion to compel an independent medical examination of Plaintiff.  (Declaration of Eric L. Anderson, ¶ 6.)  Anderson avers his office has been unable to reach an agreement with Plaintiffs’ counsel for a stipulation to the continuance.  (Declaration of Eric L. Anderson, ¶ 7.) 

 

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue Defendants have failed to show good cause for a continuance.  Specifically, Plaintiffs argue Defendants’ motion to compel an independent examination is moot, procedurally improper, and unnecessary.  The Court notes that the merits of Defendants’ pending motion to compel an independent examination are not at issue currently.

 

Despite Plaintiffs’ contentions, the Court finds Defendants have 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: