Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV33075, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33075    Hearing Date: June 7, 2024    Dept: 31

  SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

BRADLEY JOSEPH HUBER, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV33075 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.       

June 7, 2024 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On October 6, 2022, plaintiff Bradley Joseph Huber (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, Francisco Tinoco Santos, and Does 1 through 50 for arising from a motor vehicle incident.. Trial is currently set for July 3, 2024.    

On May 13, 2024, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC (collectively, “Uber”) filed the instant motion to continue the trial date and all related dates by nine months in order to complete discovery. Uber asserts that they appeared in this action less than seven months ago, because Uber was not served until September 29, 2023. Uber contends it needs additional time to investigate Plaintiff’s conservatorship, and subsequent motor vehicle accident which was discovered at Plaintiff’s deposition on March 25, 2024. Defendant Francisco Tinoco Santos joins Uber’s motion.  

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Uber has been dilatory, and that a continuance will deprive Plaintiff of the current trial date. Plaintiff contends Uber has not been diligent because in the past half year since appearing, Uber served only one set of written discovery on April 30, 2024, and that a nine month continuance is not warranted 

In reply, Uber asserts that they have not “sat on their hands” throughout the approximately six months they have been in the action, and that instead Plaintiff waited for years before commencing this lawsuit. Uber reiterates that the issue of Plaintiff’s mental capacity and conservatorship remains an unresolved issue, and that additional time is needed to conduct expert discovery and depositions. 

 

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).) 

 

  1. Discussion 

Here, the Court finds good cause to continue trial. Defendant Francisco Tinoco Santos appeared in the action on September 29, 2023, and the case was not at issue until Uber filed their Answer on October 30, 2023. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s contention that Uber has been so dilatory in discovery that a trial continuance should be denied, especially when no prejudice has been identified, and this case matter is not yet old. This is the second request for a continuance. Under the relevant factors, a nine-month continuance appears reasonable to provide the parties sufficient time to conduct and complete the discovery sought so that this matter may be resolved on the merits.   

 

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Uber’s motion to continue trial is GRANTEDThe July 3, 2024 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The June 21, 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. The parties must plan all discovery and trial preparation accordingly. 

 

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 6th day of June 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court