Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV00267, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV00267    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Virgil Hood (“Hood”) filed this action against Defendants, Lisa Mooney (“Mooney”) and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LA Metro”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Hood filed the complaint on January 6, 2020, and Defendants answered on March 2, 2020. On March 2, 2020, LA Metro cross-complained against Hector Cardona.

In a consolidated matter, Plaintiff, Maria Alvarez (“Alvarez”), filed an action against Defendants for damages arising from the same motor vehicle accident. Alvarez filed the complaint on March 27, 2020, and LA Metro answered on June 11, 2020. Mooney answered on March 16, 2022. 

Defendants now move to continue the current trial date of October 19, 2023, to at least April 19, 2024.  Plaintiffs oppose. Defendants reply.   

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:  (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance 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; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the proximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Here, Defendants aver a continuance is necessary because they need to depose Plaintiffs. They have tried to depose at least one of the Plaintiffs since January 19, 2021. (Decl. Lake ¶ 3.) They have scheduled a hearing on the motion to compel deposition for Hood for August 16, 2023.  (Decl. Lake ¶ 8.) In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the depositions of Plaintiffs will take place on May 26, 2023, and May 31, 2023. (Dec. Cole ¶ 2.) In reply, Defendants argue that even with the Plaintiffs’ depositions scheduled to be completed at the end of May, Defendants still need to conduct follow-up discovery and conduct independent medical examinations, especially given that plaintiffs recently made damages claims of $987,450 for Hood and $375,250 for Alvarez. (Reply Decl. Lake ¶¶ 2, 3.)  

The Court notes that trial has been continued three times already. 

 Given that Plaintiffs’ depositions will be completed by the end of May 2023, the Court finds no good cause to continue the trial.

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is denied.  Defendants are ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

·       Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

·       If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.   

·       Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.   

·       If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 18^th day of May 2023