Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV28451, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV28451 Hearing Date: February 16, 2024 Dept: 29
Tentative
The motion is granted in part.
Background
On August 2, 2021, Plaintiff Litzy Flores, by
and through her Guardian Ad Litem Maria Cordova, (“Plaintiff”) filed her
complaint against Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (“Defendant”) and Does 1
through 100 for medical malpractice. Defendant
filed its answer on January 7, 2022.
On December 20, 2022, on Plaintiff’s ex parte
application, the Court continued the trial date from January 30, 2023, to
September 11, 2023. On August 11, 2023, on
Plaintiff’s ex parte application, the Court continued the trial date to March
13, 2024.
On January 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed an ex
parte application to continue trial for 60 days. On January 29, the Court
denied the request for relief on an ex parte basis, granted the alternative
request to hear the motion on shortened time, and set the hearing for February
16. On February 5, Defendant filed a response stating that it did not oppose
the requested continuance, identified certain scheduling concerns, and asked
that the new trial date be set for either on May 6 or July 15. Defendant also stated that Plaintiff’s
counsel had suggested a trial date of November 4, which is acceptable to
Defendant as well.
Legal Standard
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.)
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. Circumstances 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).)
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
Plaintiff contends good cause exists for a continuance as trial is
currently set for March 13, 2024, expert depositions are still pending, and
Plaintiff is still receiving treatment for her injuries. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶¶ 4,
6, & 7.) Plaintiff requests a continuance of 60 days for trial and all
related dates. (Id., ¶ 10.) Defendant outlines certain scheduling
conflicts and proposes a trial in May or July.
(Kjar Decl., ¶¶ 2-9.) The parties have also discussed a trial date of
November 4, 2024. (Id., ¶ 10.)
The Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause for a short continuance. In light of Defendant’s scheduling conflicts,
the Court continues the trial to May 6, 2024.
Conclusion
The Motion to
Continue is GRANTED in part.
The Court advances
and continues the trial date to May 6, 2024.
Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new
trial date.
Moving Party is
ORDERED to give notice.