Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV33079, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV33079 Hearing Date: March 15, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Lyft, Inc.
Tentative
The motion is granted in part.
Background
On September 8, 2021, Plaintiff Angelica Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), Mauricio Ocampo (“Ocampo”), and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for negligence and negligence per se. The Complaint alleges that on September 27, 2019, Defendant Ocampo, while employed by Defendant Lyft, Inc., was driving a vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger; the vehicle driven by Ocampo collided with another vehicle, causing Plaintiff to sustain severe physical and mental injuries. (Complaint, ¶¶ 19-23.)
Lyft filed its Answer to the Complaint on February 7, 2022. Ocampo filed his Answer to the Complaint on November 8, 2022.
On filing, the case was assigned a trial date of March 8, 2023.
In December 2022, trial was continued to October 6, 2023, on Ocampo’s unopposed ex parte application. In July 2023, trial was continued to May 6, 2024, on Ocampo’s unopposed motion.
On February 20, 2024, Lyft filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 1, 2024. Lyft filed its reply on March 7, 2024.
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.)
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
There have been disputes between Plaintiff and Defendants regarding the number of timing of Defendants’ medical examinations of Plaintiff in this case. (Holmberg Decl., ¶¶ 5-8.) All of these disputes are now resolved: Plaintiff stipulated to four of the five requested examinations, and as to the fifth, the Court made a ruling on Ocampo’s motion on January 24, 2024. (Id., ¶ 9 & Exh. A.)
Plaintiff failed to appear at one of the agreed-to examinations on January 19. (Id., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel stated that she did not attend because she had the flu, and the parties agreed to reschedule the examination for March 19, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 9-10.)
Lyft now contends that it will suffer undue prejudice from the delay in this examination, as it will not have an adequate opportunity to conduct further discovery following the examination, including written discovery, review of medical records, and further depositions. Lyft requests that trial be continued for more than four months, to September 24, 2024.
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing (in summary) that Lyft will not be prejudiced and will have 46 days between the rescheduled examination and the trial date.
The Court finds that Lyft has shown good cause for a brief continuance of the trial date due to Plaintiff’s illness and the unexpected delay of the physical examination, but Lyft has not shown good cause for a continuance of more than four months. The motion is granted in part. Trial is continued for approximately 45 days.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS in part Lyft’s motion to continue trial.
The trial date is advanced and continued to June 21, 2024. The Final Status Conference and all
deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.
Final Status Conference is continued to 06/07/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring
Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 06/21/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.