Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV49195, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49195    Hearing Date: August 3, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s motion to continue trial is denied.

Background 

On December 24, 2020, Plaintiff Lynn Steinberg (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for negligence against Defendants Chris Hwang (“Defendant Hwang”) and Uber Technologies (“Defendant Uber”)(collectively, “Defendants”) stemming from an accident that occurred on January 31, 2019.  Defendant Hwang filed his answer on December 21, 2021.  Defendant Uber filed its answer on January 4, 2022.

On April 14, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Uber’s motion to continue trial so that it could complete discovery.  Trial was continued from June 23, 2022 to December 20, 2022.

On October 21, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Hwang’s motion to continue trial so that he could complete discovery.  Trial was continued to April 24, 2023.

On February 23, 2023, the Court granted Defendant Uber’s ex parte application to continue trial so that multiple discovery motions could be heard before trial.  Trial was continued to October 12, 2023.

On June 29, 2023, Defendant Uber filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed her opposition on July 21, 2023.  Defendant Uber filed its reply on July 27, 2023.

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).)¿ 

Discussion

Defendant Uber moves to continue trial to February 22, 2024, or later, to obtain essential discovery, take necessary depositions, and to complete the medical examinations of Plaintiff.  But the deposition of Plaintiff was completed on June 28, Plaintiff attended an orthopedic examination on July 6, and the other examinations are set for August 8 and August 28.  (Levine Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)  Defendant Uber also notes that it recently changed counsel, but a party’s voluntary decision to change counsel is not good cause for a continuance of trial.  Thus, the Court finds that there has not been a showing of good cause for continuing trial.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to continue trial is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.