I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Lise Dupuis (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended Complaint against defendants City of Los Angeles, Thanh Long Dinh Nguyen, and Does 1 to 20 for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision. Trial is currently set for May 28, 2024. 

On April 9, 2024, the City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion to continue the trial date and all related dates by 90 days. As of April 25, 2024, no opposition has been filed.  

II. MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 

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; 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).) 

Defendant argues there is good cause for a continuance because while preparing for the May 28, 2024 trial date, Defendant received updated medical records from Plaintiff indicating that Plaintiff intends to undergo total hip replacement surgery on April 23, 2024. Furthermore, Defendant learned that its orthopedic expert, Richard Rosenberg, M.D. (“Dr. Rosenberg”) is no longer available to testify because had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Dr. Rosenberg was the orthopedic expert who examined Plaintiff on August 16, 2021. Defendant therefore requests a 90 day trial continuance so that it has time to subopoena records related to Plaintiff’s hip surgery, and to allow a second medical examination of Plaintiff since Defendant now lacks an expert. Defendant avers that the prior trial continuance were to allow Plaintiff to undergo treatment for cancer, and that the parties have otherwise been diligent in conducting discovery. 

Defendant does not provide when it learned of these facts giving rise to the basis for this motion, brought approximately one and a half months prior to trial. There have been four prior requests for a continuance. Nonetheless, the motion is unopposed, and Defendant seeks a brief continuance of three months. There is no apparent prejudice to any party by continuing the trial date to allow for the completion of any outstanding discovery. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to briefly continue the trial date.  

III. CONCLUSION 

Defendants’ unopposed motion to continue trial is GRANTED.   

The May 28, 2024 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. May 14, 2024 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31. All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.  

The Court notes that this case matter is presently four years and three months old. Given the age of the case, and the number of prior continuances, the parties are on notice that the Court will not grant any further continuances. The parties must plan all discovery and trial preparation accordingly.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 7th day of May 2024