Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV33144, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV33144 Hearing Date: January 3, 2023 Dept: 29
Cuthbert Johnson v. Catherine Hafkenscheid
| Tuesday, January 3, 2023 |
[OPPOSED]
Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Catherine Hafkenscheid
Background
Cuthbert Johnson (Plaintiff) filed this action against Catherine Hafkenscheid (Defendant) on December 1, 2021 for injuries sustained during a motor vehicle collision. Defendant filed this motion to continue trial on November 22, 2022, and Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 20, 2022.
Trial is set for March 13, 2023.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Defendant has pending motions to compel initial discovery from Plaintiff, which are set for hearing on April 14, 2023, which is after the current trial date. Further, Defendant does not have Plaintiff’s medical records, has not deposed Plaintiff, and has not conducted an independent medical examination (IME) of Plaintiff.
Opposing Arguments
Defendant cannot rely on the pending hearings to compel discovery in support of this motion to continue trial. Defendant previously reserved a hearing for those motions through the Court’s reservation system but did not formally file the reservation with the clerk. On the day of the scheduled hearing, Defendant notified Plaintiff that the hearing was moved. Plaintiff argues Defendant missed his chance to compel responses.
Legal Standard
Rule of Court 3.1332 authorizes a trial continuance on an affirmative showing of good cause. Pursuant to Rule 3.1332(d), in ruling on an application or motion for continuance, the court must consider “[t]he proximity of the trial date; [w]hether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; [t]he length of the continuance requested; . . . [t]he prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; . . . [w]hether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; [w]hether interests of justice are best served by a continuance; and [a]ny other relevant facts.”
Discussion
Here, trial is three months away, and Defendant has not conducted significant discovery. (Dagmy Decl. ¶ 3.) Allowing the trial to continue trial would severely prejudice Defendant’s case.
Plaintiff argues that this is Defendant’s own fault because Defendant previously moved to compel discovery, with the hearing set before trial, and subsequently canceled the hearing and scheduled a new hearing after the current trial date. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 2.) The trial court has broad discretion to determine what constitutes good cause. (Estate of Smith (1975) 9 Cal.3d 74, 81.) In fact, it is “practically impossible to show reversible error in the granting of a continuance.” (Taylor v. Bell (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1007.) However, trial courts may be reversed for refusing to grant a continuance if their actions deny a party an opportunity to present his or her case fully and fairly. (Hays v. Viscome (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 135, 140; Palomar Mortgage Company v. Lister (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 236, 239; Cohen v. Herbert (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 488, 495.) Therefore, notwithstanding Defendant’s previous failure to schedule a hearing on motions to compel discovery before trial, the Court errs on the side of granting a continuance.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendant Catherine Hafkenscheid’s motion to continue trial is granted.
continued to 09/29/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse.
The Final Status Conference scheduled for 02/27/2023 is
continued to 09/15/2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse.
All trial related dates will be continued consistent with the new trial date including all discovery deadlines.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.