Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV00658, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00658    Hearing Date: January 10, 2025    Dept: 29

Jordan v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
23STCV00658

Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Background

On January 12, 2023, Kevin Jordan and Tania Brown (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”) and Does 1 through 10 for motor vehicle negligence arising out of an accident on February 14, 2022.

On June 7, 2023, LACMTA filed an answer.

On July 21, 2023, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to name Willishea Woods (“Woods”) as Doe 1.

On May 24, 2024, Woods filed an answer.

On filing, the case was assigned a trial date of July 11, 2024.  In April 2024, on the stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial date to January 15, 2025.

On December 12, 2024, LACMTA and Woods (collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion to continue trial.  Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 20, and Defendants filed a reply on December 30.

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).)

“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529; accord Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.)

Discussion

Defendants seek to continue trial in order to take the independent medical examinations of Plaintiffs.

Defendants contend that during the depositions of Plaintiffs in July 2024, Defendants discovered Plaintiffs moved from Pennsylvania, and had received continuing medical care in Texas. (Rubin Decl., ¶ 6.) Defense counsel request authorization to release out of state medical information on August 15, 2024 and received all of Plaintiffs’ out of state medical records by the end of November 2024. (Id., ¶ 7.) Based on this information and Plaintiffs’ supplemental responses to discovery, Defendants believe independent medical examinations are necessary of Plaintiffs.

Defendants seek a continuance of 60 to 90 days.

Plaintiffs do not oppose a continuance, but do oppose the motion as to extending the discovery deadlines. Plaintiffs argue Defendants had notice of medical treatment in Texas as early as August 18, 2023. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.4 show treatment in Texas in 2022. (Exh. A.)

The Court finds Defendants have not established good cause for discovery to be continued at this time. It appears that Defendants have not been diligent in following up with discovery requests and had knowledge of medical providers in Texas before the July 2024 deposition dates.

As the parties are in agreement to a trial continuance, the Court GRANTS IN PART the motion to continue trial. The Court DENIES the extension of discovery deadlines; factual discovery is to remain closed.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIED IN PART Defendants’ motion to continue trial. 

Trial is continued to a date on or after March 18, 2025.  The Final Status Conference is reset based on the new trial date.  No discovery deadlines are reset or extended by this order.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.