Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32580, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV32580 Hearing Date: August 1, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Continue
Trial filed by Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Portier, LLC, and Rasier,
LLC.
Tentative
The Court will call this matter to consider
whether to consider Plaintiff’s late filed opposition and, if so, whether to continue
the hearing and grant moving parties additional time to file their replies.
Based on the evidence and briefing submitted,
the Court’s tentative ruling is to deny the motion without prejudice.
Background
On October 5,
2022, Muhamad Awadallah, Amir Awadallah, and Denise Delgado (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Hong Jiang, Rasier, LLC, Uber
Technologies, Inc., and Rasier-CA, LLC for motor vehicle negligence and general
negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring on October 25, 2020.
On March 10, 2023, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Portier, LLC, and Rasier, LLC
(collectively, the “Uber Defendants”) filed an answer. On August 21,
2023, Defendant Hong Jiang filed an answer.
On July 3, 2024,
the Uber Defendants filed this motion to continue trial. Defendant Jiang filed
a joinder of motion on July 3. Plaintiffs Amir and Denise filed a late opposition
on July 24; the Uber Defendants and Jiang filed replies on July 25.
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
As a preliminary
matter, the Uber Defendants and Jiang ask that the Court disregard Plaintiffs’
opposition, which was not filed or served until July 24, just six court days prior
the hearing. In light of the disruptions
experienced in the Los Angeles County Superior Court as a result of a cyber
attack on or about July 19, the Court understands why the opposition was filed
late – but not why the opposition was not served in a timely fashion.
The Court’s
tentative ruling is to exercise its discretion to consider the late-filed opposition,
to continue the hearing, and to grant the moving parties additional time to
file replies.
The Court will hear
from counsel on these issues.
The Court proceeds
to set forth its tentative ruling on the motion, for the benefit of counsel.
The Uber
Defendants request a trial continuance for essentially three reasons: (1) to
accommodate a mediation scheduled for September 25, 2024; (2) to pursue
discovery on Plaintiff Muhamad’s February 2024 epidural injections; and (3) to
conduct discovery on Plaintiff Denise’s April 3, 2024 motor vehicle accident.
(Motion, 2:11-14; 4:5-7.)
The Court finds
that the mediation is not good cause for a continuance of trial. Parties can (and frequently do) explore
settlement at a wide variety of times, including shortly before, during, or
even after trial. The mere possibility of
settlement is no reason to continue trial.
And, in any event, Plaintiffs state that they have not agreed to
mediation. (Zar Decl., ¶ 6 & Exh.
A.)
Next, the Court
finds that the epidural injection received by Plaintiff Muhamad Awadallah in February 2024, and his ongoing treatment, does
not establish good cause for a trial continuance. The Uber Defendants propounded discovery on
these issues in May, with the responses due (after an agreed upon extension) on
July 12. (Kostich Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.) Trial is scheduled for October 7, 2024. Assuming that the discovery responses have
been received (and the Court has not heard otherwise), the Uber Defendants will
have almost three full months from the receipt of this information to the first
day of trial, which is more than adequate.
(The Court recognizes that it is possible
that the discovery responses may require follow up or additional party or
third-party discovery, but that is only a theoretical possibility at this
point, based on the papers that the Court has reviewed in connection with this
motion. The Court is not inclined to
continue trial based on speculation or the mere possibility that additional
discovery may be necessary.)
Finally, the fact that Plaintiff Denise
Delgado was in a subsequent motor vehicle accident on April 3, 2024, is also
not a sufficient basis for the Court to find good cause for a trial
continuance. Defendant Jiang propounded
discovery regarding this accident, with the responses due on July 30. Assuming that the discovery responses have
been received, defendants will have more than two months from the receipt of
this information to the first day of trial, which is more than adequate.
(As noted above, the Court recognizes that it
is possible that the discovery responses may require follow up or additional
party or third-party discovery, but the Court is not inclined to continue trial
based on speculation or the mere possibility that additional discovery may be
necessary.)
After careful
consideration of all of the evidence in the record, all of the argument from
both sides, and after careful application of each of the factors set forth in
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivisions (c) and (d), the Court
does not find, on this record, that good cause has been shown for the requested
continuance of trial.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES, without prejudice, the
motion to continue trial.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.