Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV07601, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV07601    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 29

Alexis Avila, et al. v. Los Angeles Unified School District

Thursday, October 13, 2022

TENTATIVE

The motion to continue trial and related deadlines is granted. Trial is continued to April 17, 2023.

Legal Standard

Although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation): (1) unavailability of trial counsel or witnesses due to “death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”; (2) the addition of a new party depriving the new party (or other parties) from conducting discovery and preparing for trial; (3) “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts”; or (4) “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case” preventing it from being ready for trial.  (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)   

Other relevant considerations 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 a 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 on the continuance; and [¶] (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.”  (Id., Rule 3.1332(d).) 

Discussion

Defendant moves to continue trial for four months, arguing good cause exists as additional discovery is required including but not limited to, the depositions of LAUSD school employees and expert witnesses. Further, Defendant argues it that in December of 2021, it reserved a hearing date on its Motion for Summary Judgment for November 29, 2022, which was the earliest possible date on the online Court Reservation System. However, the trial date is December 5, 2022, which is only six days away. Defendant argues it will require additional discovery after the MSJ hearing to defer the expense of expert depositions and discovery until after their summary judgment motion is heard.

Plaintiff argues there is no good cause to continue trial as trial was continued once before and Defendant had 1 year and four months after to prepare this case for trial. Despite this, Defendants completely ignored their obligation to diligently litigate this matter. Now, Defendants seek a continuance of the trial date in order to have their untimely motion for summary judgment heard. Defendants made a late filing of a motion for summary judgment and reserved a date for this motion to be heard 6 days before the current trial date. Defendants then filed a motion to continue trial to allow of their summary judgment motion to be heard. Plaintiff argues that Defendants assert that they attempted to obtain a hearing date in December 2021 and the first available date was November 29, 2022. However, Plaintiff argues that Defendants offer zero proof of this fact. If Defendants had this scheduling hurdle in December 2021, then the motion to continue trial should have been filed at that time.

Defendant argues that it has not delayed in this case and that this case was not at issue due to Plaintiff's substantial delays of service until October 23, 2020 in the middle of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, Defendant District's school campuses were shuttered and many of its employees unavailable until fall of 2021. Delays due to the pandemic were not unique to the District and also caused delays in scheduling hearings.

The Court finds there is good cause for a trial continuance. While Defendant did not timely file its motion for summary judgment in accordance with the trial date, its argument that the pandemic caused delays in discovery and scheduling of hearings is valid. Moreover, Defendant requires more discovery as it has not been completed. Although Plaintiff argues that Defendant has been dilatory, he makes no argument as to how a trial continuance would prejudice him. Thus, the interests of justice would be served by a trial continuance.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial and related deadlines is GRANTED. Trial is continued to April 17, 2023.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.