Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 21STCV38696 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV38696, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38696 Hearing Date: February 9, 2023 Dept: 29

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV38696

OPPOSED

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC

Background

On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff David L. Hadder filed a complaint against Defendants Aneudi Bernardino Dominguez Dominguez and EAN Holdings, LLC, alleging two causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) negligent entrustment (as to EAN Holdings only).

Plaintiff alleges that on September 29, 2021, Defendant Dominguez struck Plaintiff with a vehicle owned by EAN Holdings, LLC when Plaintiff was a pedestrian, causing him to lose his balance and fall on the pavement face first, landing on his left shoulder.

On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC).

On January 6, 2023, Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 27, 2023. Defendant filed a reply on February 1, 2023.

Trial is currently set for April 19, 2023.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Defendant moves for a trial continuance from April 19, 2023, along with all related deadlines, to a date nine months beyond the currently set trial date. Defendant argues that good cause exists because it did not receive Plaintiff’s timely verified responses to special interrogatories, set one, prior to the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment. On March 31, 2022, Defendant EAN served multiple sets of routine written discovery on Plaintiff seeking to gather critical information related to Plaintiff’s claims against EAN in this matter. On or about May 5, 2022, Plaintiff served unverified responses to the subject discovery. These responses became the subject of a motion to compel further responses, which was granted in part on November 29, 2022. As part of the Court’s order, Plaintiff provided responses to special interrogatories, set one, on December 29, 2022. However, the responses are still deficient and will require additional meet and confer efforts. The deadline to file a motion for summary judgment was December 29, 2022 (factoring in five days for service by mail). Therefore, as it stands right now, Defendant EAN argues it was denied its due process right to file a motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff’s claims due to the Plaintiff’s failure to provide code complaint responses within a reasonable timeframe. Additionally, there is other unrelated discovery which still needs to be completed, such as the depositions of the other parties to this action.

Opposing Arguments

Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff, plaintiffs' counsel and plaintiff’s witnesses have been forced to clear their schedules and made themselves available for the current trial date. Plaintiff’s counsel noticed the Depositions and served written discovery on the individually named Defendants Aneudi Bernardino Dominguez Dominguez and lgnacio Rodriguez on multiple occasions. Because of the individually named defendants failure to respond to discovery Plaintiff was forced to initially serve partial responses to Defendant EAN Holdings written discovery early in the case. Complete verified response were subsequently served in the case. There has been no significant changes in this action or the dates surrounding the case that would warrant a trial continuance simply to schedule a late Motion for Summary Judgment that Defendant EAN has been threatening to file for over a year.

Reply Arguments

Defendant argues that Plaintiff egregiously stonewalled Defendant’s EAN's discovery efforts since it entered the case in March of 2022. Had Plaintiff provided proper discovery responses in May of 2022, EAN would have had what it needed to file a motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff’s claims.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that 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).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings. In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.)

Discussion

Plaintiff, in opposition, argues that Plaintiff, plaintiffs' counsel and plaintiff’s witnesses have been forced to clear their schedules and made themselves available for the current trial date. Plaintiff’s counsel noticed the Depositions and served written discovery on the individually named Defendants Aneudi Bernardino Dominguez Dominguez and lgnacio Rodriguez on multiple occasions. Because of the individually named defendants’ failure to respond to discovery Plaintiff was forced to initially serve partial responses to Defendant EAN Holdings written discovery early in the case. Complete verified response were subsequently served in the case. Plaintiff further argues that there has been no significant changes in this action or the dates surrounding the case that would warrant a trial continuance simply to schedule a late Motion for Summary Judgment that Defendant EAN has been threatening to file for over a year.

The Court finds there is good cause to continue trial. Granting the continuance will allow Defendant to engage in further discovery, as it has not been completed, and to then file its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues that he would be prejudiced by a trial continuance because his experts have cleared their calendars, however, he does not state for example that if trial is continued, his experts would be unavailable. Moreover, the Court notes that Liberty Mutual is moving to intervene in this action on behalf of Defendants Aneudi Bernardino Dominguez Dominguez and lgnacio Rodriguez who have been unresponsive, and to continue trial. As such, the motion is granted. Trial is continued to January 24, 2024. All discovery and motion cut-off dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to January 24, 2024. All discovery and motion cut-off dates shall be based on the new trial date.