Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV26709, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV26709, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26709 Hearing Date: August 5, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On July 20, 2021, Avak Miravakian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and State of California for common law negligence, statutory negligence based on Government Code sections 815.2, 815.3, 815.4 and 820, and statutory liability/dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835 causes of action arising out of automobile accident on December 28, 2020.

On October 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed the First Amend Complaint asserting statutory negligence based on Government Code sections 815.2, 815.3, 815.4 and 820, and statutory liability/dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835 causes of action against State of California.

On December 29, 2021, The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (“Defendant”) filed an answer.

On July 10, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (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.)

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).)

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.” (Cal. Rules of Court, 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 support a finding of 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: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) 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.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

“In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that the court may consider:

“(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).)

“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529; accord Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.)

Discussion

Defendant seeks a trial continuance due to recently discovered information regarding Plaintiff’s neurological treatment. Defendant contends that responses to form interrogatories did not list a neurologist as treating Plaintiff, however, during Plaintiff’s deposition on March 23, 2024, Plaintiff testified to certain symptoms and treatment by a neurologist. (Brandon Decl., ¶ 4.)

Defendant contends that it did not receive treatment records from Plaintiff’s neurologist until July 3, 2024. (Id., ¶ 6.) Defense counsel contends Plaintiff’s examination by a neurologist is necessary; the earliest an examination can take place is August 2024, with a report received in September 2024. (Id., ¶ 8.) Defense counsel states Plaintiff’s counsel has agreed the evaluation should be conducted. (Id., ¶ 10.) No opposition has been filed by Plaintiff.

The Court finds Defendant has established good cause to continue trial to accommodate Plaintiff’s neurological examination.

The request to continue trial is GRANTED for good cause shown.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion and CONTINUES the trial date to January 21, 2025. The Final Status Conference is continued to January 7, 2025. All discovery deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.