Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV34488, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV34488 Hearing Date: March 13, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Lyft, Inc.
Tentative
The motion is granted in part.
Background
On October 27, 2022, Eric Jason Austin (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), Amadu Tejan Bah (“Bah”), and
Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for general negligence; negligent
hiring, training, retention and supervision; and motor vehicle negligence arising
out of an automobile accident that occurred on October 14, 2021, at or near the
intersection of Vermont Avenue and 43rd Street in Los Angeles. Lyft and Bah filed their answers on January
27 and May 1, 2023.
At the time of filing, this action was assigned a trial
date of April 25, 2024. On the
stipulation of the parties, the trial date was continued to June 3, 2024.
On February 13, 2024, Lyft filed
this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 29,
2024. Defendant filed its reply on March 6, 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).)
Preliminary
Matters
Plaintiff
objects to the “new evidence” presented by Lyft in its reply. The objections are OVERRULED. In its reply, Lyft presents arguments in
response to Plaintiff’s opposition but does not present any evidence.
Discussion
Lyft moves to continue trial, arguing (among other things) that there
has been a recent, significant change in the status of the case: Plaintiff
recently had spinal cord stimulator surgery, leading to a substantial increase
in the magnitude of claimed damages as well as the need to conduct additional
discovery. (Leahy Decl., ¶¶ 3, 8, 11-13.) Lyft also anticipates that there will be significant
motion practice with regard to document production and a neuropsychiatric
examination. (Id., ¶¶ 14-17.)
Lyft states that it has missed its deadline to file a motion for
summary judgment. (Id., ¶ 18.) It
is unclear how or why that would support a finding of good cause for a trial
continuance.
Additionally, Lyft argues in its motion, without supporting evidence,
that Plaintiff made a large and unexpectedly high settlement demand for the
first time on January 16, 2024, and that Plaintiff stated for the first time in
January 2024 that his medical bills to date exceed $1.2 million.
Absent from Lyft’s motion is any showing that it has been diligent in
discovery; that any of the anticipated discovery disputes has led to the filing
of a motion; or that any of the necessary discovery cannot be completed in
advance of trial.
Moreover, as Plaintiff shows in his opposition, in response to Defendant
Bah’s discovery, Plaintiff disclosed extensive injuries and medical bills of
approximately $800,000 as of June 2023; Defendant Bah subpoenaed Plaintiff’s
medical providers; Lyft sent out additional subpoenas to Plaintiff’s medical providers
on February 6, 2024; Lyft did not request any defense medical examination prior
to February 9, 2024; and Plaintiff has recently responded to Lyft’s discovery
and produced a significant amount of documents.
(Ryan Decl., ¶¶ 3-9.) Additionally, Plaintiff argues in his
opposition, without supporting evidence, that Lyft did not serve any discovery
in this case until January 2024. (Lyft
concedes this point in its Reply, at pages 3-4.)
The Court has
carefully considered the evidence and argument presented by the parties, as
well as the circumstances and factors set forth in California Rules of Court,
rule 3.1332. As set forth in subdivision
(a), trial dates “are firm” and “counsel must regard the date set for trial as
certain.” The Court has already granted
one continuance, based on the stipulation of the parties. Lyft’s has not demonstrated much diligence in
seeking or obtaining discovery in this case, and its arguments are based
largely on conjecture about discovery disputes that may – or may not – require motion
practice. Having said that, Plaintiff recently
did undergo a significant procedure that has had the natural effect of
increasing the claimed damages in this case; it may well be true, as Plaintiff
argues, that this was disclosed to Lyft promptly, but this is nonetheless a
significant development that occurred less than six months before trial,
necessitating further investigation, fact discovery, and likely expert
testimony. And Plaintiff has not shown
that he would suffer any undue or unfair prejudice from a continuance of the
trial date.
On balance, the
Court finds that Lyft has shown on this record good cause for a brief
continuance of the trial date of approximately 45 days. This ruling is without prejudice to any further
request for a continuance by any party, based upon a further showing of good
cause, but counsel is reminded to regard the trial date that the Court is
setting as firm.
Conclusion
The Motion to
Continue Trial is GRANTED in part.
The trial date
is advanced and continued to approximately July 18, 2024. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines
are reset based on the new trial date.
Moving Party is
ORDERED to give notice.