Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV11236, Date: 2025-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11236    Hearing Date: May 14, 2025    Dept: 29

Navas v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
23STCV11236
Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On May 18, 2023, Miriam Lourdes Navas (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) and Does 1 through 25 for general negligence, motor vehicle negligence, and premises liability arising out of an incident on November 4, 2022, in which, Plaintiff alleges she was injured.

On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against the same defendants asserting the same causes of action and adding some additional allegations pertaining to Government Code section 815.

On February 14, 2024, Metro filed an answer to the FAC.

On April 17, 2025, Metro filed this motion to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

On April 18, 2025, Metro filed a cross-complaint against Transdev Services, Inc. (“Transdev”) and Roes 1 through 10.

Trial is set for July 24, 2025.

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

Metro requests a trial continuance based on its recent filing of a cross-complaint against Transdev, a newly added party.  Metro contends that another entity (initially thought to be MV Transportation and later discovered to be Transdev) was operating the bus at the time of Plaintiff’s injury. (Wainfeld Decl. ¶ 3.) Metro and Plaintiff have stipulated to the continuance. (Exh. A.)

On the facts presented, the Court finds there is good cause to grant the motion to continue trial.  The motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial filed by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The Court CONTINUES the trial to a date on or after October 31, 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.