Judge Michelle C. Kim, Case 20STCV22356 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV22356, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22356 Hearing Date: May 5, 2023 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

SOFIA GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

VILLA ADOBE, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

CASE NO: 20STCV22356

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

May 5, 2023

Plaintiff Sofia Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants , et al. Villa Adobe for injuries relating to Plaintiff’s trip and fall on a PVC pipe that was protruding vertically from the ground on defendants’ property. Trial is currently set for June 27, 2023.

Defendants the Roberts Companies a California Limited Partnership, Robert H. Blumenfield Living Trust U/A/D November 7, 1984, LA Adobe Limited Partnership (for itself and Villa Adobe erroneously sued herein), and Westmoreland Development Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) now moves to continue the trial and all related dates to July 10, 2023.[1] No opposition has been filed.

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).)

Here, Defendants contend there is good cause for the requested trial continuance and to continue all trial related dates because Plaintiff’s former counsel was unavailable due to health reasons, and her departure from Plaintiff’s counsel’s firm resulted in Defendants’ inability to obtain critical information from Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendants were delayed in obtaining Plaintiff’s deposition because of Plaintiff’s new counsel being diagnosed with Covid-19 shortly before the scheduled deposition. Defendants further provide that the parties intend to resolve this action in mediation, and that a continuance will not prejudice any party. Defendants aver they will suffer irreparable harm if the trial and trial dates are not continued because Defendants will be deprived of essential evidence. Defendants are seeking only a brief trial continuance, and they assert that there are not alternative means to address these issues.

The motion is unopposed, and Defendant establishes good cause for a short continuance. Furthermore, given the discovery identified by Defendants that they have not been able to obtain despite their earlier efforts, Defendants establish good cause for continuing the trial related dates along with the new trial date. (CCP § 2024.050.) However, given the age of this case, the parties must expect no further continuances. They should plan all motion and discovery practice accordingly.

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted. The June 27, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The June 13, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31. All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued based on the new trial date.

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 5^th day of May 2023

Hon. Michelle C. Kim

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Defendants filed this motion on March 8, 2023, seeking to continue the previous trial date of April 10, 2023. On March 13, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application to continue the trial date in part by continuing the trial date to June 27, 2023, to allow this motion to be heard. The Court specifically noted that discovery and motion cutoff dates had to be continued via a noticed motion.