SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff Nancy Monteros (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Albertsons, LLC and Albertsons Companeis, Inc. for premises liability. Trial is currently set for October 16, 2023.   

On July 7, 2023, Defendant Albertsons, LLC, erroneously sued as Albertsons Companeis, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion, requesting the Court to continue the trial date and all related dates to April 12, 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 filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint on September 9, 2022. Defendant avers a continuance is necessary because of Plaintiff’s delay in serving discovery responses. Furthermore, Defendant argues it has not yet taken Plaintiff’s deposition, initially set for July 14, 2023, because it was unable to subpoena Plaintiff’s medical records until Plaintiff served responses. Defendant further contends it requires an expert to assess Plaintiff’s claimed injuries, and that a physical examination may be required. The parties stipulation to continue trial was rejected because the requested continuance was beyond 24 months after the filing of the complaint. Defendant argues a continuance would allow the completion of necessary discovery, and allow time to discuss settlement or participate in mediation. Defense counsel avers that Plaintiff’s deposition has not moved forward as of the date of the instant motion. 

This is the first request for a trial continuance, and Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Therefore, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial date to allow the parties sufficient time to conduct and complete discovery prior to trial.   

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

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