Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV01291, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01291    Hearing Date: May 19, 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 Postmates, LLC (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, and all other trial related deadlines, which is currently set for July 12, 2023, to January 9, 2024.  Plaintiff Ismael Rodriguez (Plaintiff) opposes the motion.  Defendant replies. 

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 discovery and provide another opportunity to engage in alternative dispute resolution before trial commences.  Defendant advances the declaration of Noelle D. Gonzalez (Counsel), in support of the motion.  Counsel avers that the instant case was filed on March 17, 2022, trial was set for July 12, 2023, eighteen months later, and Defendant first appeared in the case on November 3, 2022.  (Declaration of Noelle D. Gonzalez, ¶ 4.)  Thus, as Counsel highlights, Defendant had eight months after its appearance in the case to complete necessary discovery and prepare for trial.  (Declaration of Noelle D. Gonzalez, ¶ 4.)  Counsel details Defendant’s diligent efforts to conduct discovery since its appearance, and outlines discovery that still needs to be completed such as the physical examination of Plaintiff and Defendant Mitchell David Scaff’s deposition.  Counsel also states that a motion for summary judgment mut be drafted.  (Declaration of Noelle D. Gonzalez, ¶¶ 5-8.). Counsel highlights no previous trial continuance has occurred.  (Declaration of Noelle D. Gonzalez, ¶ 12.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant has failed to establish good cause for a trial continuance.  First, Plaintiff argues that the proximity of the trial date is a non-issue as Defendant had at least three months after it filed the instant motion to continue to complete the outstanding discovery.  Plaintiff notes that Plaintiff’s deposition has been taken, and the physical examination of Plaintiff and deposition of Defendant Scaff have been timely noticed and scheduled before the discovery cutoff date as currently set.  Finally, Plaintiff contends that his harms and losses will be exacerbated by a delay in the trial. [1] 

In reply, Defendant argues that after the deposition of Defendant Scaff set for May 17, 2023, additional discovery may be necessary based on the information revealed during the deposition.  However, the current deadline to serve written discovery to accommodate the discovery deadline as currently set, May 15, 2023, will have already passed.  Defendant further notes its intention to file a motion for summary judgment and highlights that it would have needed to file its motion for summary judgment on March 29, 2023, based on the currently set trial related deadlines, a mere month after Plaintiff served her first written discovery responses.  Defendant concludes that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a continuance because a trial continuance will allow for sufficient time to collect and assess all relevant facts and discovery, ultimately allowing the case to be tried on its merits.

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 July 12, 2023, is continued to January 24, 2024 at 8:30 am in Department 32.

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for June 28 2023, is continued to January 10, 2024 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 January 24, 2024.

·         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.