Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV00032, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00032    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

On January 5, 2023, Plaintiff Mallory Llewellyn brought suit for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Ramadhan Kelly-Jabbar; Serg Mezheritsky; and Leonid Merrit, and later, via Doe amendment, Turo, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). 

Defendants now move to continue the trial, currently scheduled for March 17, 2025.  The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

            California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c), provides:

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;

(5)  The addition of a new party if:

(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.

Factors the Court considers in ruling on a motion for continuance include:

(1)  The proximity of the trial date;

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

(3)  The length of the continuance requested;

(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;

(8)  Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9)  Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(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.

(Rule 3.1332(d).)

            Defendants bring their motion on the grounds that (1) there is still extensive discovery yet to be completed, including depositions of all parties and an independent medical examination of Plaintiff; (2) the parties are still exploring settlement negotiations and/or a global mediation; and (3) lead trial counsel is engaged in another trial on March 17, 2025.

            As for the extensive outstanding discovery yet to be completed, the Court does not find counsels’ lack of diligence in obtaining necessary discovery to constitute good cause to warrant a continuance of trial.  In particular, the Court admonished the parties to complete their discovery, both non-expert and expert discovery, at the July 30, 2024 Status Conference.  At that time, the Court indicated that it was not inclined to continue the trial as the parties had and have time to complete their discovery. 

            Further, the Court does not find good cause to continue the trial date absent a comprehensive discovery plan.  The parties could have established good cause by presenting to the Court a comprehensive discovery plan that identifies ALL outstanding non-expert and expert discovery and details on how the parties will complete/resolve such discovery in order to prepare for trial or other resolution. 

            As for counsel’s engagement in another trial, counsel has not indicated whether the Orange County case or this case is older and takes priority.  If any counsel is engaged on the trial date, then the Court will consider a continuance. 

            Finally, with respect to the argument that the parties “are still exploring settlement negotiations and/or a global mediation” counsel has not indicated that the parties have agreed to a global mediation or any other indication that the parties have a concrete plan to attempt to resolve this case through ADR.  The Court would have considered continuing the trial if the parties had selected a mediator and a date for the mediation.

            As such, Defendants have not provided good cause to continue the trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to continue trial, without prejudice. 

 Further, the Court orders Defendants to provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  February 6, 2025                                                    ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court