Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV11270, Date: 2025-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11270    Hearing Date: March 21, 2025    Dept: 29

Allen v. County of Los Angeles – Fire Department
22STCV11270
Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted in part.

Background

On April 1, 2022, Stephanie Allen, by and through her Guardian Litem Gwen Allen (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against County of Los Angeles – Fire Department (“County”), State of California – Highway Patrol, McCormick Ambulance, and Does 1 through 20 for gross professional negligence arising out of the alleged failure to provide adequate care to Plaintiff following an automobile accident on January 16, 2021.

On August 23, 2023, Westmed Ambulance, Inc. dba McCormick Ambulance filed an answer to the complaint.

A default was entered against County, and subsequently set aside.

On February 23, 2024, County filed an answer.

On October 9, 2024, the Court dismissed, at the request of Plaintiff, Westmed Ambulance and State of California Highway Patrol.

On February 25, 2025, County filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 3, and County filed a reply on March 13.

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).)

Discussion

The Court has reviewed the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion.

The Court finds that there is good cause for a continuance of the trial.  County has encountered delays in completing discovery that are, at least in part, attributable to Plaintiff, including delays in obtaining written discovery responses and delays in scheduling key depositions.  (Contreras Decl., ¶¶ 3-7.)

The deposition of Plaintiff is now set for April 1, 2025.  (Id., ¶ 8.)  The Court understands that some follow up discovery may be necessary after the deposition.  Nonetheless, County has not shown good cause for the requested five-month continuance of the trial date (currently set for May 12, 2025).

For good cause shown, trial is continued for approximately 60 days. 

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS in part County’s motion to continue trial.

The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or after July 11, 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all discovery deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.