Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV10542, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV10542    Hearing Date: August 15, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion is granted in part. Trial is continued for approximately 60 days.

Background

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiffs Julia Roper and Eduardo Martorell (“Plaintiffs”) filed complaint in this action against Defendants Fernando Zepeda Garcia, Lyft, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, arising out of a car accident that occurred on March 20, 2018. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant Zepeda Garcia drives for Lyft; his vehicle collided with Plaintiff Martorell’s vehicle; and the force of the collision pushed Plaintiff Martorell’s vehicle into Plaintiff Roper’s vehicle. (Complaint, ¶¶ 8-9, 21.)

Defendant Lyft filed an answer on April 27, 2020.

Defendant Zepeda Garcia was served by substitute service on or about June 4, 2020. He filed a motion to quash the service, but he failed to appear at the hearing, and the motion was taken off calendar. His default was taken on February 4, 2021, but then set aside on his motion on January 18, 2022. On February 17, 2022, Defendant Zepeda Garcia finally filed his answer, more than 20 months after he was served.

Trial is currently scheduled for September 15, 2023.

On July 19, 2023, Defendant, Lyft filed the instant motion to continue trial and all related dates. Defendant Zepeda Garcia filed a joinder to the motion. On August 2, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On August 8, Defendant Lyft replied (and the next day Defendant Zepeda Garcia filed a joinder as to the reply).

Legal Standard

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (CRC rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Ibid.)  

Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (2) the unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (3) the unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (4) the substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice, (5) the addition of a new party if the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or if the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case, (6) a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts, or (7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (Ibid.)

In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider all the facts and circumstances relevant to the determination.  Courts may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:  (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance 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; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial. (See generally, CRC, rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  

Additionally, factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the proximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (CRC, rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Discussion

Defendants move to continue trial and all related pre-trial dates to a date on or after January 16, 2024, based on further discovery to be conducted. As this Court noted in connection with a previous hearing, Defendants have been attempting to schedule the deposition of Plaintiff Martorell since at least May 2022. According to the information in the reply brief, Plaintiff finally was deposed on August 4, 2023. Defendants now claim that, based on information that they learned in the deposition, further follow up discovery is necessary. (This is Defendants’ contention; Plaintiffs have not had the opportunity to respond to it, and the Court accepts it as one side’s argument, without making any finding in that regard.)

Plaintiffs argue (in sum) that the delays in completing discovery in this case are the result of Defendants’ lack of diligence. Defendants argue (in sum) that Plaintiffs have hindered and obstructed the orderly and timely competition of discovery.

The Court has reviewed the evidence and finds (a) that there is a need for some additional discovery and (b) that both sides share, to some extent, in the responsibility for the delays in completing discovery in this case. This case was filed in 2020; Defendant Lyft answered more than three years ago; Defendant Zepeda Garcia was served more than three years ago; and the only reason that Zepeda Garcia did not answer until May 2022 was his own lack of diligence (he did not answer when served, his motion to quash service was taken off calendar, his default was taken, and then his motion to vacate the default was granted based on attorney neglect). Plaintiff Martorell is hardly blameless, however, as he managed to delay the taking of his deposition for more than a year – and it was scheduled only after Defendants filed a motion to compel.

On balance, the Court finds that Defendants have shown good cause for a short continuance of trial, but not for the requested continuance of four months. A continuance of approximately 60 days is sufficient, the Court finds, for Defendants to complete the necessary discovery in this matter in diligent fashion.

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part. Trial is advanced and continued until mid November 2023. All deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Defendant Lyft to give notice.