Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV47521, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47521    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

I. BACKGROUND 

On December 20, 2021, plaintiff Brittany Moore (“Plaintiff Moore”) filed this action against defendants Tomas Cruz, Alvaro Alacon, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier LLC, Raiser-CA LLC, and Does 1-50 for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision. This matter was consolidated with Tomas Antonio Cruz vs. Alvaro E. Alacon, et al. Case No. 22STCV01166. (Joint Stip. & Order, May 21, 2023.) 

Trial is currently set for May 30, 2024. 

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier LLC, Raiser-CA LLC (“Uber”) now moves to continue the trial date, and all pre-trial deadlines, to January 13, 2025 or a date thereafter. Defendant Alvaro Alacon joins the motion, and provides his counsel’s unavailability dates for the purposes of rescheduling trial.  

Plaintiff Moore opposes the motion. No opposition was received from Plaintiff Tomas Antonio Cruz (“Plaintiff Cruz”). Uber filed a reply.  

1.    Moving Argument 

Uber asserts a trial continunce is necessary because Plaintiff Moore has not provided responses to Uber’s first and second set of written discovery. Further, Uber learned from Plaintiff’s counsel that Plaintiff Moore underwent an “emergency fusion” surgery sometime at the end of September 2023, and later learned Plaintiff Moore would be undergoing a spinal cord stimulator trial. Uber requested those records, but none were provided. Thus, Uber subpoenaed Plaintiff Moore’s providers, which were due on January 12, 2024, but not provided until February 2024. Uber still has not received records related to the spinal cord stimulator. 

Uber therefore requests more time in order to receive Plaintiff Moore’s responses to outstanding discovery, in addition to outstanding discovery owed by Plaintiff Cruz after his counsel requested a 45-day extension to already past-due responses.   

2.    Opposing Argument 

Plaintiff Moore argues she has provided all her updated medical records to Uber, and also provided responses to Uber’s second set of written discovery. However, Plaintiff Moore acknowledges that Uber has not received responses for discovery directed to Plaintiff Cruz. Thus, although she opposes a continuance, Plaintiff Moore requests that trial be continued to no more than three months.  

3.    Reply Argument 

Uber contends Plaintiff Moore’s responses to the second set of discovery were not verified and contains a number of evasive and objection only responses. Uber avers its counsel is actively meeting and conferring with Plaintiff Moore’s counsel in this regard. Further, Uber has not received Plaintiff Moore’s further responses and verifications to its first set of discovery. The parties attended an IDC on March 11, 2024, which was continued to April 10, 2024 to provide briefing regarding the issues. Additionally, Uber contends there is no indication when Plaintiff Cruz will provide responses to the outstanding discovery. 

II. MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 

1.    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).) 

2.    Discussion 

Here, the Court finds good cause to continue trial. Plaintiff Moore does not provide sufficient justification for trial to be continued by no more than three months, especially in light of the continuing and unresolved discovery issues with Plaintiff Cruz. Plaintiff Cruz did not file a response to this motion, and presumably concedes to the issues raised. Plaintiff Moore identifies no prejudice from a continuance. Further, this matter is not yet old, and there is good cause to continue the trial date to allow the parties sufficient time to conduct and complete the discovery sought, including providing enough time to bring any motions that may be necessitated.  

Therefore, Uber’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED.  The May 30, 2024 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The May 16, 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.   

Moving party 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 26^th day of March 2024