Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV31431, Date: 2025-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31431    Hearing Date: March 12, 2025    Dept: 29

Girard v. Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center
21STCV31431

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background 

On August 25, 2021, Plaintiff Hudson Girard, by and through his guardian ad litem Brian Girard, and Elizabeth Urban (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the underlying complaint against Defendants Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center; Providence Medical Institute; Providence Women’s Health Center—Burbank; Providence Medical Associates; Danielle Anderson, M.D.; and Does 1-100 (“defendants”) asserting causes of action for (1) medical negligence and (2) mother’s claim for emotional distress in connection with the labor and delivery.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent and careless in treating and providing obstetrical care for Plaintiff during labor, causing minor Hudson to sustain disabling injuries on August 30, 2020.

On March 25, 2022, Defendant Anderson filed an answer to the complaint.

On April 20, 2022, Defendant Providence Medical Institute dba Providence Women’s Health Center-Burbank (erroneously also sued separately as Providence Women’s Health Center- Burbank) (“Providence Medical Institute”) filed an answer to the complaint.

On April 27, 2022, Defendant Providence Health System-Southern California dba Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (“Defendant”) filed an answer to the complaint.

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a request to dismiss Providence Medical Institute.

On June 28, 2023, Providence Medical Associates filed an answer to the complaint.

On filing, the case was assigned a trial date of February 22, 2023.

In December 2022, on the stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial date to April 17, 2024.  The showing of good cause included the filing of a summary judgment motion by Defendant Anderson that was set for hearing in February 2024.

In January 2024, on the stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial date to October 14, 2024.  The showing of good cause included the complexity of the case and the relocation of Plaintiff to Massachusetts.

In June 2024, on the stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial date to February 24, 2025.  The showing of good cause included the scheduling of a mediation.

In December, on Defendant’s ex parte application, the Court continued the trial date to May 28, 2025.  The showing of good cause included additional necessary discovery.  The Court denied the request for a longer continuance (without prejudice to the filing of a noticed motion).

On February 6, 2025, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial.  No opposition has been filed.

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).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings.  In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.) 

Discussion

Defendant moves to continue trial to September 15, 2025, arguing good cause exists as the parties have agreed to a further mediation of this matter on June 19, 2025, and the parties must conduct further discovery which has been complicated by minor Hudson’s out-of-state relocation to Boston, Massachusetts. Plaintiffs contend defendants provided negligent labor and delivery care, causing minor Hudson to now suffer from permanent and disabling neurologic injuries which require life-long medical care and treatment. (Hammer Decl., ¶ 2.) Furthermore, Plaintiff Elizabeth Urban asserts a claim for emotional distress. (Id.) Given the complicated nature of these claims, Defendant contends the parties have been working together to subpoena minor’s out-of-state medical records which requires additional time for Defendant’s experts to review such medical records and fully evaluate claims for damages. (Id., ¶ 4.) Moreover, Defendant’s trial counsel, Terry Schafer, is unavailable in the month of June. (Id., ¶ 6.) Defendant argues such continuance is necessary to promote the interests of justice and to promote judicial economy. (Id., ¶ 9.) Thus, Defendant reasons that if this continuance is not granted, the parties will be irreparably harmed as they will be precluded from fully evaluating their respective cases and attempting to resolve this case short of trial. (Id.) Moreover, based upon the current trial date, the parties will not have sufficient time to complete necessary discovery, fully evaluate liability, causation and damages, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases. (Id.) Finally, Defendant resolves that the continuance will not prejudice any party and there is a general consensus amongst the parties that a continuance is appropriate to accommodate all parties. (Id.)

The Court finds that there is good cause for continuing the trial date as Defendant contends that the parties have agreed to attend mediation in June of 2025, and still need additional time to complete discovery. Additionally, it does not appear that Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by a continuance, as Defendants state Plaintiffs are in agreement and Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion.

The Court does note, however, that it is concerned with the age of the case and the progress of discovery.  Some of the arguments regarding the requested continuance are similar to those in the prior requests.

The motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial.

The Court CONTINUES the trial to a date on or after September 15, 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

The Court ADVISES counsel and all parties to treat the trial date as FIRM.  The Court will look with disfavor on any further request to continue trial.

Moving party to give notice.