Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 19STCV35950 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV35950, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV35950 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendants Santa Monica Women’s Healthcare Associates, Inc., and Olivia Crookes, M.D.’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to September 14, 2023.

Legal Standard

Dates assigned for trial are firm, and parties and their attorneys must regard these dates as certain to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (CRC 3.1332(a).)

However, CRC, Rule 3.1332(c) states, in relevant part: “Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. CRC, Rule 3.1332(c) lists several circumstances that may indicate good cause, including the unavailability of witnesses, the unavailability of parties, the unavailability or substitution of trial counsel, the addition of new parties, a party’s excused inability to obtain material evidence, or a significant, unanticipated change in the case’s status. (CRC, Rule 3.1332(c)(1)-(7).)

Further, CRC, Rule 3.1332(d) states: “In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay 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 or application for continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) the court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.”

Discussion

Defendants move to continue trial set for September 7, 2023 to September 14, 2023, because Defendant Dr. Crookes resides in Ireland and cannot be available in Los Angeles to be present at trial until September 18, 2023. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by a week-long continuance. As such, Defendants argue good cause exists in order to allow Defendant Dr. Crookes to be present for the entire course of re-trial, including jury selection.

Plaintiff argues in opposition that there is no reason to continue the trial from September 7, 2023 to September 18, 2023 to accommodate defendant Dr. Crookes’s availability. There is no showing by declaration or otherwise of good cause why defendant Dr. Crookes is not available until September 18, 2023. Second, Plaintiff argues that the trial will not start on September 7, 2023. Rather, the case will be assigned to a trial court if one was available. Defendant Dr. Crookes need not be present when counsel appear ready for trial. At best, the case will be assigned to a trial court on September 7, 2023. Following the assignment to a trial court, the judge will need to review the motions in limine and schedule a hearing date to rule on such motions. Based upon the last trial date in this case, that took more than 3 days. Again, Defendant Dr. Crookes need not be present when the court schedules a hearing date on the motions in limine and/or be present when the court rules on the motion in limine. In fact, Defendant Dr. Crookes was not present when the court ruled on the motions in limine during the last trial. Following the assignment to a trial court and the ruling on the motions in limine, the court will need to timely order qualified jurors. During the last trial, a jury questionnaire was prepared and agreed upon by the parties and the court before any jurors were summoned. Assuming a jury questionnaire is used again, that will take several days. Following the court’s rulings on motions in limine and the preparation of the questionnaire, the judge will then summon potential jurors. Once potential jurors have been ordered to appear, the jurors will then need to complete the questionnaires. The questionnaires will then need to be copied and reviewed by all counsel. That took several days in the first trial. Following the completion of questionnaires, copying of the questionnaires, and the review of questionnaires by all counsel, the court will then address the juror’s request to be excused for cause given the length of the trial. Based upon the first trial that took several days. Plaintiff argues that it is important to note that Dr. Crookes was not available until all of the above steps were completed in the first trial. On the other hand, plaintiffs will be prejudiced if this case does not start as scheduled. Plaintiffs want to avoid being in the same position as they were faced last time when after they rested their case, there was a two-week recess due to the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. Obviously, the recess after plaintiffs presented their case caused some jurors to forget some of the testimony of plaintiffs’ witnesses.

The Court finds that Defendants have presented sufficient facts to show that there is good cause to continue trial. Defendants have explained that the earliest Dr. Crookes can return to Los Angeles to be present at trial is September 18, 2023. Defendants argue that assuming there is a trial court available on September 14, 2023, which is the continuance date requested by Defendants, this will allow the parties to begin completing pre-trial matters before Dr. Crookes’ arrival on September 18, 2023, thereby eliminating the objections in Plaintiffs’ opposition. Defendants have taken into consideration the time it will take to complete pre-trial matters, including completing juror questionnaires, when requesting a trial date continuance to September 14, 2023, instead of September 18, 2023. Moreover, the Court will note the timeline on the trial schedule in Plaintiffs’ opposition is based on assumptions. The timeline could move faster or slower, depending on a number of different factors. If the timeline moves faster, Dr. Crookes would then be unavailable during jury selection, which could result in prejudice to Dr. Crookes.

Plaintiffs argue that they will be prejudiced if this case does not start as scheduled. Plaintiffs want to avoid being in the same position as they were faced last time when after they rested their case, as there was a two-week recess due to the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. Plaintiffs contend that the recess after plaintiffs presented their case caused some jurors to forget some of the testimony of plaintiffs’ witnesses. However, the Court notes that last year, the parties requested a continuance of the trial on October 7, 2022, due to what appears to be a mediation that was set for October 21, 2022. (See 10/7/2022 Minute Order (Jury Trial Assignment Hearing); and 10/24/2022 Minute Order (Trial Setting Conference).) Thus, the last trial appears to have started on November 8, 2022, and the jury announced they were deadlocked on January 20, 2023. (See 11/8/2022 Minute Order (Jury Trial); and 1/20/2023 Minute Order (Jury Trial).) Whereas, here even with a continuance, trial would start on September 14, 2023, two months before November, the month the last trial started. The last trial lasted 73 days without accounting for the two-week recess due to the holidays. Thus, assuming trial takes 73 days this time, it should be finished by November 27, 2023. As such, a one-week continuance here will not cause the case to face a long recess as a result of the holidays. Therefore, at this point, it is speculation to say that a one-week continuance would cause the case to face a long recess.

As such, without any other prejudice cited to by Plaintiffs, the Court finds Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by a one-week trial continuance. Therefore, the motion is granted. Trial is continued to September 14, 2023.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to September 14, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. FSC continued to September 1, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.