Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV38338, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38338    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: 29

Sarkis Karkour Hanayan v. Reem Reda Fawzy Girgis

TENTATIVE

The motion to continue trial and related dates is DENIED.

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 and all related deadlines to February 6, 2023, arguing that good cause exists as Defendant was not served with the Complaint until January 10, 2022, and therefore, Defendant filed her responsive pleading on February 7, 2022. Further, Defendant argues that discovery has not yet been completed. Documents are still being received as medical providers are taking longer than allowed to respond to subpoenas. As of July 15, 2022, five subpoenas remain outstanding. Due to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, a defense medical exam is likely to be required after the deposition. An exam cannot be scheduled prior to the deposition as the current status of Plaintiff’s injuries and their exact nature is unknown. Defendant argues she will need additional time after Plaintiff’s deposition to complete expert discovery pertaining to Plaintiff’s injuries.

Plaintiff opposes and argues that Plaintiff made at least 12 attempts to serve Defendant, and that Defendant may have been evading service, which caused a delay in this case. Plaintiff argues trial was continued once before by stipulation. Further, Plaintiff argues that the parties have conducted significant essential discovery and have already taken the deposition of both Defendant and Plaintiff. A vehicle inspection was also completed. Plaintiff argues there is no outstanding fact discovery to be completed. On August 4, 2022, the deposition of Plaintiff was taken, and in the three weeks after, Defendant has not noticed an independent medical examination. Plaintiff argues this is yet another example of Defendant’s dilatory tactics. Plaintiff argues they have enough time to complete expert discovery and keep the current trial date.

The Court finds there is no good cause to continue trial. While Defendant appeared in this case in February of 2022, trial was already continued once before for the parties to conduct discovery. Plaintiff has explained that discovery is now complete as depositions and written discovery have been taken, and Defendant has not noticed an independent medical examination of Plaintiff. Defendant has not filed a reply to rebut Plaintiff’s argument that discovery is complete. It is not clear why expert discovery cannot be completed before the trial date.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial and related dates is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.