Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV00076, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00076    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

1.     Background

On January 3, 2022, Plaintiff Marco Letona (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Beverly Hills, Billy Blair, and Does 1 to 100 for Motor Vehicle and Liability for the Wrongful Act or Omission by Public Entity Employees arising from a vehicle collision between Plaintiff and Defendant Billy Blair, while in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant City of Beverly Hills.

Defendants City of Beverly Hills and Billy Blair (collectively “Defendants”)  now move to continue trial the trial date from July 24, 2023 to April 1, 2024, or a date that is convenient for the Court.  Plaintiff filed a non-opposition to Defendants’ Motion, but requests that the continuance be no longer than six (6) months from the current trial date. 

2.     Moton to Continue Trial

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).) 

A ground for a continuance is “[a] party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.”  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c)(6).)  

In determining whether a trial continuance is warranted, the Court may also consider other factors such as: (1) “[t]he proximity of the trial date”; (2) “[w]hether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party”; (3) “[t]he length of the continuance requested”; (4) “[t]he availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion”; (5) “[t]he prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance”; (6) “[w]hether trial counsel is engaged in another trial”; and (7) “[w]hether all parties have stipulated to a continuance.”  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).) 

Defendants argues good cause exists to continue trial to April 1, 2024, or a date that is convenient for the Court, because the parties need additional time to complete discovery, including written discovery and all depositions, and to try and resolve the case informally.  (Lee Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)  Specifically, Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for April 19, 2023, but were informed that date would not work for Plaintiff or his counsel.  (Id., ¶ 6.)  While Defendants asked Plaintiff’s counsel for available dates for Plaintiff’s deposition, they have not been provided any such dates as of the date of filing this motion.  (Id.)  Further, the parties have been discussing a settlement, and Plaintiff’s counsel represented that a settlement offer was pending.  (Id., ¶ 5.)  Nevertheless, Defendants have not received any such offer, even after following up on the parties’ discussions.  (Id.)  Moreover, Plaintiff has agreed to a trial continuance to November 2023, and counsel for all the parties will be unavailable for Trial in December 2023.  (Id., ¶ 7; Ex. “C.”)  Lastly, additional factors favor a continuance including that the continuance would be the first for this matter, the parties will suffer prejudice, and the case is not a preference case.  (Motion pp. 6-7.) 

Plaintiff filed a non-opposition to Defendants’ motion.  Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants’ representation of the subject incident and the reasons provided for the continuance but does not oppose the continuance.  (Non-Opposition pp. 1-2.)  However, Plaintiff requests that it be no longer than six (6) months from the current trial date.  (Id.)

Here, the Court finds there is good cause to continue the trial date based on the need for additional time to complete discovery and for the parties to explore informal resolution of this matter.  Also, the Court finds additional factors support a trial continuance; namely, there has not been any previous continuance, and Defendants will suffer prejudice if they are unable to try to resolve the case informally and complete discovery, despite diligent efforts, if a continuance is not granted.  Plaintiff, moreover, does not oppose a trial continuance as he has filed a non-opposition to Defendants’ motion.  Plaintiff only requests that a continuance be no longer than six (6) months from the current trial date, but the non-opposition does not provide any reason(s) for such request.  The length of the continuance requested by Defendants is approximately eight (8) months, which is only two months longer than Plaintiff’s request. 

Therefore, the Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendants City of Beverly Hills and Billy Blair is GRANTED.

Defendant City of Beverly Hills and Billy Blair’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.  The July 24, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The July 10, 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. 

Moving 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 23rd day of May 2023