Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV35105, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35105    Hearing Date: January 24, 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

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, and all trial-related dates, which is currently set for March 23, 2023, to dates agreed upon by the parties or to dates mutually agreeable on the Court’s calendar.  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.)  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 continuance of trial to complete necessary pre-trial discovery, to submit the matter to private mediation, and to allow more time after the Court rules on Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate, which is presently set for hearing on March 14, 2023, to prepare for trial.  Defendant relies on the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Russel M. Rubin (Counsel).  Counsel states that Defendant was not able to schedule the motion to consolidate earlier due to the congestion of the Court’s law and motion calendar.  (Declaration of Russel M. Rubin, ¶ 2.)  Further Counsel avers that Plaintiff has not been able to provide complete information about prior injuries to parts of the body claimed in this action, and thus Defendant needs more time to subpoena records and review subpoenaed documents.  (Declaration of Russel M. Rubin, ¶ 2.)  Finally, Counsel anticipates submitting this matter to private mediation once all of the discovery has been completed.  (Declaration of Russel M. Rubin, ¶ 2.) 

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 all trial related dates and orders as follows:

• The trial date, currently set for March 3, 2023, is continued to October 5, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for February 17, 2023, is continued to September 21, 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 October 5, 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.