Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV24378, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24378    Hearing Date: June 27, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Deanna Newton.

Tentative

The motion is DENIED.

Background

On July 28, 2022, Jose Jerez and Danny Ray Alianza DeSouza, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litam, Ana Guillen (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles (“City”), Marilyn Sue Adkins (“Adkins”), and Does 1 through 25 for (1) motor vehicle negligence, (2) negligence and premises liability, (3) dangerous condition of public property, and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress causes of action arising out of an automobile accident occurring on August 3, 2021, at or near the intersection of 66th Street and Estrella Avenue in Los Angeles.

In January and June 2023, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to name Deanna Newton (“Newton”), Restore Neighborhoods LA, Inc., Barry Brewer, and Jasmine Beard as Doe defendants.  Restore Neighborhoods LA, Inc. was subsequently dismissed.

On March 22, 2023, City filed its answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against Adkins and Roes 1 through 10.

On May 31, 2023, Newton filed her answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against City, Adkins, and Roes 1 through 10.

On August 11, 2023, Adkins filed an answer to both the complaint and City’s cross-complaint.  Adkins also filed a cross-complaint against Moes 1 through 100.

On May 24, 2024, the Court entered an order determining that the settlement between Plaintiffs and Adkins was a good faith settlement under code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

When the case was filed, the Court assigned a trial date of January 25, 2024.  In August 2023, the Court continued the trial date to July 25, 2024, based on the stipulation of the parties.

On May 20, 2024, Newton filed this motion to continue trial and all related dates. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on June 4.  Newton filed a reply on June 21.

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

Newton moves to continue trial for 90 days to complete discovery.  Newton has the burden to show good cause for the requested continuance and has not done so.

With the moving papers, Newton’s counsel provides little facts to support a good cause determination.  Counsel states, in conclusory terms, that Newton has “worked diligently to obtain the necessary discovery,” but no supporting facts are stated.  (Foreman Decl., ¶ 11.)  Newton appeared in the case in May 2023, the current July 2024 trial date (and June 2024 discovery cutoff) was set in August 2023, and there is no evidence that Newton took any action to schedule the independent medical examinations until the middle of May 2024, essentially the eleventh hour.  A party’s lack of diligence in obtaining necessary discovery is not good cause for a trial continuance.

In the reply, Newton’s counsel notes that Plaintiffs recently requested a ten-day continuance to provide supplemental discovery responses, pushing the response date from June 17 to June 27.  It is true that the supplemental document production will now be made two days after the discovery cutoff, but it is unclear why that delay is good cause for the requested relief of a 90-day continuance of trial.

In the absence of a showing of good cause by the moving party, the motion is denied.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendant Deanna Newton’s motion trial.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.