Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 18STCV05377, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV05377    Hearing Date: October 4, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Freddy M. (“Freddy M.”), by and through his guardian ad litem, Paola Mejia, Noe Reyes Lopez, and Paola Mejia (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on November 16, 2018 against Defendants Joe Oroñoz and Sarah Oroñoz. On February 13, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to the Complaint naming PI Properties No. 79, LLC (“PI Properties”) in place of “Doe 21.”

Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on June 26, 2020. The TAC alleges causes of action for (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability, (3) negligence, (4) private nuisance, and (5) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. This action concerns alleged uninhabitable conditions at 6429 ½ S. Victoria Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90043 (the “Subject Property”), where Plaintiffs reside. (TAC, ¶¶ 1, 16.) Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that deteriorated lead-based paint and other lead hazards at the Subject Property resulted in Freddy M. contracting lead poisoning and suffering permanent neurological, cognitive, and behavioral harm. (TAC,

¶ 70.)

On June 29, 2020, PI Properties filed a Cross-Complaint against a number of cross-defendants, asserting causes of action for (1) declaratory relief, (2) implied equitable indemnity, and (3) negligence.     

The trial date in this action is currently set for October 4, 2023.     

Plaintiffs now move for an order to “continue the trial, presently set for September 18, 2023, and related dates, including the Final Status Conference, to February 12, 2024, or to a date thereafter convenient to the Court’s calendar and all trial counsels’ calendars.”[1] No opposition to the motion was filed.

            Discussion

“The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (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, subd. (d).)

Plaintiffs assert that good cause exists here to continue the trial date.

Plaintiffs note that circumstances that may indicate good cause for a trial continuance include “[t]he unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c)(3).) Plaintiffs’ counsel states that “[l]ead trial counsel, Juan Victoria, and counsel Jeffrey Lamb are set for trial in Los Angeles County for a case that must be tried due to the 5-year rule which is currently set for September 12, 2023.” (Victoria Decl., ¶ 6.) In addition, “Juan C. Victoria, Plaintiffs’ lead trial counsel, has trials set in Los Angeles County on…October 11, 2023, October 16, 2023, October 23, 2023, October 25, 2023, November 1, 2023, November 9, 2023, November 13, 2023.” (Victoria Decl., ¶ 8.) “Jeffrey Lamb, also counsel for Plaintiffs in this action, has trials set in Los Angeles County on…October 2, 2023, October 11, 2023, October 16, 2023, October 23, 2023, and November 1, 2023.” (Victoria Decl., ¶ 9.) In addition, “Plaintiffs’ counsel Matthew McNicholas is also set to begin trial on September 29, 2023, October 2, 2023, October 9, 2023, October 16, 2023, October 18, 2023, and October 30, 2023.” (Victoria Decl., ¶ 7.)

            Plaintiffs also assert that the circumstances support a trial continuance here under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d). (See Mot. at pp. 6:19-7:10.) Pursuant to

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d)(9), factors to be considered in ruling on a motion for a trial continuance include “[w]hether all parties have stipulated to a continuance.” Plaintiffs’ counsel indicates that on August 31, 2023 the Parties stipulated to a trial continuance. (Victoria Decl., ¶ 2.)

            Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for a trial continuance.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted.

The Court continues the final status conference to ______________, at 10:00 a.m., in Dept. 50 and trial to _____________, at 9:30 a.m., in Dept. 50.

All discovery deadlines are continued based on the new trial date.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  October 4, 2023                                                     

________________________________

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court