Judge Michael E. Whitaker, Case Number: 21STCV41593, Date: 2024-06-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV41593, Date: 2024-06-24 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Rosalina Ruiz (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice suit on November 12, 2021.

On January 29, 2024, Defendant Aziz Rasooli, D.P.M. (“Defendant”) moved ex parte to continue the trial date to permit a separate lawsuit (Ruiz v. City of Culver City, Case No. 21STCV06958 which pertains to Plaintiff’s underlying trip and fall incident which precipitated her seeking medical treatment from Defendant) to be tried before this action because as asserted any recovery Plaintiff receives in the other action may be an offset in this action. The Court granted the ex parte and continued the trial in this action to September 16, 2024.

Defendant Aziz Rasooli (“Defendant”) moves to continue the trial again, commensurate with a trial continuance in the underlying trip and fall action. Defendant’s motion is unopposed. Further, attached to Defendant's motion is a Stipulation in which Plaintiff agrees to the trial continuance and extension of the discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates. (See Motion, Exhibit A.)

“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”].)

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:

(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

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

(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or

(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;

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

(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.

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

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

Trial in the underlying trip and fall case was continued from May 6, 2024 to December 2024.[1] (Lender Decl. ¶ 2.) Therefore, Defendant has demonstrated good cause to continue the trial in this action as well. However, the Court has an impacted trial calendar in 2025 and is unable to accommodate a trial continuance of 60 days after the trial in the underlying slip and fall action.

Alternatively, the Court will vacate the Trial and Final Status Conference, and set a Trial Readiness Conference on January 16, 2025 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207. The parties shall file a Joint Trial Readiness Conference Report no later than 5 court-days before the conference, providing detailed information about the parties’ readiness for trial and the status of discovery.

Until further order of the Court, all discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the Trial Readiness Conference date of January 16, 2025. 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.

In addition, the Court, on its own motion, discharges the Order to Show Cause hearing set on August 30, 2024 as moot. Defendant James Emory Burrows was dismissed on May 31, 2024.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

[1] Based upon the Court’s docket in 21STCV06958, the trial in that action is set for November 18, 2024. Notwithstanding, the trial date in 21STCV06958 is after the trial date in this action.

DEPARTMENT	207
HEARING DATE	June 24, 2024
CASE NUMBER	21STCV41593
MOTION	Continue Trial
MOVING PARTY	Defendant Aziz Rasooli, D.P.M.
OPPOSING PARTY	none