Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV36712, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36712    Hearing Date: April 21, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Benjamin Devinney (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant CR&R Incorporated (“Defendant”) for damages Plaintiff sustained after inspecting a container owned by Defendant.  Plaintiff alleges that the subject container’s ladder was broken, so Plaintiff climbed on the corner of the container.  Plaintiff stabilized himself with one foot on the container and the other on the container’s contents.  As Plaintiff pushed the container’s contents down, the contents shifted causing Plaintiff to fall backward off the container.  Trial is currently set for June 5, 2023. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date to October 17, 2023, or a date thereafter.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant filed a 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; 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, Defendant avers a continuance is necessary because Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is set for hearing for June 12, 2023, after the current trial date.  Defendant provides that June 12, 2023 was the first available hearing date for its motion for leave.  Defendant asserts that it intends to file a cross-complaint against Performance Team, who was Plaintiff’s employer at the time of the incident, because Plaintiff testified that Performance Team did not train Plaintiff how to load containers from which he fell.   Further, Defendant argues that additional time is needed to complete discovery, including to take the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable.   

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that there is not good cause to continue the hearing date because Defendant has delayed in litigating this action, including in seeking to file a cross-complaint against Performance Team.  Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that he does not need the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable to proceed to trial, and that he will be prejudiced if the trial date is continued. 

In reply, Defendant contends that it has not delayed in seeking leave to file its cross-complaint because it reserved its motion for the Court’s first available hearing date.  Defendant avers there is good cause to continue the trial date due to the Court’s unavailability to hear Defendant’s motion at an earlier date. 

Although Plaintiff contends that Defendant delayed in seeking leave to file the cross-complaint, and in seeking to continue the trial date, Plaintiff does not dispute that June 12, 2023, is the first available hearing date for Defendant’s motion to be heard.  As the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Defendant properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date for its motion for leave.  Moreover, while Plaintiff contends he will be prejudiced if the trial date is continued, no alternative means are identified to address the issue concerning Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.  Accordingly, there is good cause to continue the trial date to allow Defendant’s motion for leave to be heard prior to trial. 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The June 5, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The May 22, 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. 

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 21^st day of April 2023