Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV38041, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV38041 Hearing Date: October 11, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
The motion to continue trial is GRANTED
Background
On October
2, 2020, Plaintiff Yoneeth Louk (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
Defendants Darren Page and Ricky Hottage (“Defendants”) alleging causes of
action for motor vehicle and general negligence. The complaint arises from an automobile
collision which occurred on May 18, 2020.
On November 9, 2020, Defendants filed their answer to complaint, which
sets forth a general denial and nine affirmative defenses.
On March
4, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation, which the Court granted, to continue
the trial date from April 1, 2022 to December 5, 2022. On December 1, 2022, the parties entered into
another stipulation, which the Court granted, to continue trial from December
5, 2022 to October 26, 2023.
Besides
the parties’ joint motion to continue trial, there has been no motion practice
in this action.
On September
15, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants filed a joint motion for an order to
continue the trial date by no less than three months with discovery cut-off and
expert designations to be based on the new trial date. Trial is currently set for October 26, 2023.
The motion
is made on the grounds that: (1) both Plaintiff and Defendants both have new
counsel; (2) counsel has identified a critical liability witness who needs to
be deposed; (3) depositions of police officers need to be taken; and (4) the
parties need to consult with liability experts to properly prepare for trial.
Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(8) provides that the
court has the power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them
conform to law and justice. The power to determine when a continuance should be
granted is within the discretion of the trial court. (Color-Vue, Inc. v.
Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) A trial court has wide latitude
in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of
continuances. (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.) The decision whether to grant a continuance
is within the trial court’s discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal
absent a clear showing of abused discretion. (Jurado v. Toys “R” Us, Inc. (1993)
12 Cal.App.4th 1615, 1617.)
A party seeking a continuance of the date set
for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated by the parties, must
make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or ex parte application,
with supporting declarations. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(b).) The party
must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the
necessity for the continuance is discovered. (Ibid.)
Each request for a continuance must be
considered on its own merits according to California Rules of Court,
Rule 3.1332(c). The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative
showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c).) Good
cause may be present where there is a “substitution of trial counsel, but only
where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the
interests of justice.” (Cal. Rules of
Court, Rule 3.1332(c)(4).) Good cause may
also be present where a party has not been unable “to obtain essential
testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c)(6).)
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332
sets forth a list of non-exhaustive factors to be analyzed when determining
whether good cause for a trial continuance is present. A court considers
factors such as: (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. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(d).)
Discussion
This action involves a disputed liability motor vehicle collision where the
parties dispute who had the red light.
(Cohen Decl., ¶ 3.) The parties
have filed two previous stipulations to continue the trial date. (Id., ¶¶ 6-7.) As of September 7, 2023, the parties have
engaged new counsel to represent them in this action and counsel, after meeting
and conferring, has determined that critical discovery still needs to be
conducted. (Id., ¶¶ 8-9, 14.) This includes a critical liability witness,
Mr. Noe Gurrola, who witnessed the subject incident, as well as a UCLA police
squad car that has dash camera footage which would depict whether Plaintiff’s
traffic signal was red or green. (Id.,
¶¶ 10-11.) The parties also indicate
that the parties plan to depose the UCLA police officers who were driving the
squad car to ascertain what the officers observed concerning the subject
incident. (Id., ¶ 11.)
Counsel declares that expert witnesses are sought given the contested
nature of liability in this action. (Id.,
¶ 12.) Counsel states that the parties
need to complete critical discovery and risk not having their day in court by
not having all the critical evidence they need to try the issue of
liability. (Id., ¶ 15.) An attempt to take the deposition of the
percipient witness, Mr. Gurrola, was made; however, it did not go forward due
to Mr. Gurrola appearing at the wrong address.
(Id., ¶¶ 10, 16; Cohen Decl. at Exhibit 2.) The traffic collision report from the UCLA
officers was not able to be obtained as no traffic collision report was
generated. (Id., ¶ 17.) The current attorneys for Plaintiff and
Defendants can facilitate the resetting of Mr. Gurrola’s deposition and are in
the process of obtaining material information from the UCLA Police
Department. (Id., ¶ 18.) Counsel declares that there is no alternative
means to address the problem without a continuance as the parties will not be
able to obtain the discovery evidence by the current trial date. (Id., ¶ 19.) Counsel also declares that no prejudice
exists with granting a continuance as the parties agree that a continuance is
warranted. (Id.)
The Court finds that good cause exists to continue trial. The parties
indicate that, despite efforts to obtain critical discovery, the parties have
been unable to do so. Also, the parties
have recently engaged new counsel who have determined additional discovery is
needed. This will be the third trial
continuance in this action and the trial date is within three weeks. However, given that the: (1) parties agree
that a continuance is warranted and stipulate thereto; and (2) discovery needed
is critical to Plaintiff and Defendants’ ability to prepare for trial, the
Court finds it appropriate to continue trial.
The parties are only requesting a short continuance of trial of no less
than three months.
Exercising its discretion under Park
Motors, Inc. v. Cozens, supra, 49
Cal.App.3d 12, 18, the Court elects to continue trial in this matter so that
the parties can obtain their necessary discovery.
Plaintiff’s counsel to give notice.