Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV01061, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01061    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 11, 2021, Plaintiffs John Meas and Olivia C. Meas filed this action against Defendants Subaru of America Inc. and Subaru Pacific.

On September 30, 2024, just one week before the Final Status Conference and two weeks before the trial date, Plaintiffs’ counsel David W. Lunn submitted a declaration “respectfully submit[ting] notice of [his] unavailability for the Final Status Conference in this matter due to [his] prepaid family vacation from October 3-13, 2024.”

On October 2, 2024, just five days before the Final Status Conference and twelve days before the trial date, Attorney Lunn submitted a declaration “respectfully submit[ting] that [his] unavailability for Trial, due to [his] preplanned vacation, along with Plaintiff’s expert’s unavailability, constitutes good cause for a continuance.”

Plaintiffs’ lead trial counsel was not present at the October 7, 2024 Final Status Conference, in violation of the Court’s June 3, 2024 Trial Preparation Order.  The Court therefore vacated the October 14, 2024 trial date and set a Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions Against Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

Attorney Lunn’s January 21, 2025 declaration in response to the OSC explained that “due to an internal scheduling error, the Final Status Conference, scheduled for October 7, 2024, had not been correctly calendared and assigned in [the] firm’s internal database due to a scheduling error,” resulting in counsel’s non-appearance.  This is contrary to the explanation in counsel’s September 30, 2024 and October 2, 2024 declarations that correctly stated the upcoming Final Status Conference and trial dates.

At the January 28, 2025 Case Management Conference (which Defendants’ counsel did not attend), the Court discharged the OSC, placed the Case Management Conference off calendar, and sent an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute the Case.

On February 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to specially set this case for trial before January 10, 2026.  A party may move to advance, specially set, or reset a case for trial upon a showing of good cause.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1335.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel explains that the prior lead trial counsel departed the firm in September 2024, so the case was reassigned to Attorney Lunn.  (Lunn Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.)  Attorney Lunn had already paid for a family vacation out of the country from October 3-13, 2024, so he was unable to attend the October 7, 2024 Final Status Conference.  (Lunn Decl. ¶¶ 13-14.)  Counsel explains that there is good cause to reset the trial date “because Plaintiffs diligently prosecuted their claims against Subaru, and they are prepared and ready to engage in trial.”  (Lunn Decl. ¶ 15.)

Defendants contend that the “bare-bones declaration submitted in support of plaintiffs’ Motion is stunningly silent as to several key facts,” and it lacks explanations about why Plaintiffs’ alternate counsel did not inform the Court at the Final Status Conference about lead trial counsel’s departure, when Attorney Lunn’s pre-paid vacation was booked, or why the issue was not brought to the Court’s attention before the Final Status Conference.  (Opposition at p. 4.)  Defendants argue that there can be no determination that there is good cause to specially set the trial without this information.  (Id. at p. 5.)

The policy favoring trial of an action on the merits is preferred over the policy that requires dismissal for failure to proceed with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of an action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.130.)  Counsel’s errors should not prevent Plaintiffs from obtaining a timely trial date, especially when there is no evidence that Plaintiffs themselves failed to prosecute their case.

Accordingly, the motion to specially set this case for trial is GRANTED.

Final Status Conference is scheduled for _____________.

Jury Trial (5 day estimate) is scheduled for _____________.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 27th day of March 2025