SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On March 5, 2021, Plaintiff Dominic Painter (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Farokh Aminzadeh Rabbi (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident. Trial is currently set for November 16, 2023.   

Defendant now moves the Court to continue the trial date and all related dates to September 2024 or a date thereafter. No opposition was filed. 

 

II. Legal Standard 

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).) 

 

III. Discussion 

Here, Defendant argues a continuance is necessary to permit Defendant sufficient time to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition and any follow-up discovery resulting from the deposition, such as an physical examination of Plaintiff. Defendant avers he noticed Plaintiff’s deposition and demand for production of documents originally on November 10, 2022. However, after serving four subsequent deposition notices, Plaintiff did not appear for his deposition. After the fifth deposition notice setting the deposition date for June 30, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel informed defense counsel that Plaintiff would be serving a CCP section 998 offer to compromise, and that Plaintiff’s deposition would not take place until the offer expired. To date, Plaintiff has not appeared for his deposition and produced requested documents, or provided alternative dates for his deposition. Consequently, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition, and the first available hearing date was for February 28, 2024, after the current trial date.   

This is the first request for a trial continuance, and Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Therefore, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial date to allow Defendant’s motion to compel to be heard, and to provide Defendant sufficient time to conduct and complete discovery prior to trial.   

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED.   

The November 16, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The November 2, 2023 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.   

 

Defendant is ordered to give notice.