Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV05946, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV05946 Hearing Date: December 15, 2022 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL
DISTRICT
I.
INTRODUCTION
On February 21, 2019, plaintiffs Alba Guillermina
Carmona Suarez, Andrew Vieyra, and Yaher Vieyra (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
filed this action against defendant Martha Traub (“Defendant”) arising from an
automobile collision that occurred on February 23, 2017. On October 18, 2022, Plaintiffs amended the
Complaint to add Jason Traub as a defendant.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 8, 2023. On November 15, 2022, Defendant filed this
motion seeking an order continuing the trial date to January 17, 2024, and to
continue all discovery and motion cut-off deadlines based on the new trial
date. In the alternative, Defendant
requests the Court advance the hearing on the motion for summary judgment
currently reserved for November 30, 2023, so that it may be heard 30 days
before the current trial date.
No opposition or reply brief is in the record.
II.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition
of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) Continuances are thus
generally disfavored. (See id. rule 3.1332(b).) Nevertheless, the trial court
has discretion to continue trial dates. (Hernandez v. Superior Court
(2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.) Each request for continuance must be
considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good
cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c); Hernandez, supra,
115 Cal.App.4th at 1246.) Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:
(1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death,
illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party
due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability
of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4)
the substitution of trial counsel 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).)
The court must also consider such relevant
factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any
previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by 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. (Id., rule 3.1332(d).)
On motion of any party, the court may grant leave
to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery
heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new
trial date has been set. This motion
shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a good
faith effort at informal resolution.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)
The court shall take into consideration any
matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the
necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2) the diligence or lack of
diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery
motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the
discovery motion was not heard earlier, (3) any likelihood that permitting the
discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to
trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or
result in prejudice to any other party, and (4) the length of time that has
elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the
trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2024.050, subd. (b).)
III.
DISCUSSION
Defendant
argues that good cause exists for a continuance because she is entitled to have
her motion for summary judgment heard.
Defendant states that the first available date was November 30, 2023,
and that this motion was filed as soon as she realized that no earlier hearing
dates were available.
The
Court notes that Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on September 9, 2022,
before bringing this motion. The request
for continuance is granted.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Trial is continued from March 8, 2023 to January
17, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.
The final status conference is continued from February 22, 2023 to January
3, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27.
All pretrial deadlines including discovery and motion cut-off dates are
to be based on the new trial date.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this
tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating
intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided
on the court website at www.lacourt.org.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to
appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the
hearing and argue the matter. Unless you
receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume
that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the
parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no
appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the
tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.