Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV15003, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV15003    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On April 30, 2019, Plaintiff Verenisi Tavira Torres (“Plaintiff’) filed a complaint against Defendant Maria Rodriguez (“Defendant”) for negligence and negligence per se arising from a car accident that occurred on or about May 31, 2017.

On July 1, 2020, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court ordered trial continued from October 27, 2020 to February 25, 2021.

On December 22, 2020, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court ordered trial continued from February 25, 2021 to January 27, 2022.

On January 13, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue trial and continued the trial from January 27, 2022 to August 5, 2022.

On July 22, 2022, at the Final Status Conference, the Court continued the trial from August 5, 2022 to August 12, 2022 pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On August 1, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue trial.  The Court found that the application was a motion to extend or reopen discovery and that such a motion must be filed as a noticed motion. 

On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to continue trial and expert-related discovery deadlines only. 

On August 5, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the Final Status Conference and trial dates later than Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial.  Trial was continued from August 12, 2022 to September 30, 2022.

Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to this motion on August 23, 2022.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).)  Continuances are thus generally disfavored.  (Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (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, subd. (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, subd. (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, subd. (d).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks a court order continuing the August 12, 2022 trial date to January 6, 2023, or thereafter as is convenient to the Court and all parties.  Plaintiff also seeks a continuance of expert-related discovery deadlines only.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that, subsequent to the filing of this motion, the August 12, 2022 trial date was continued by ex-parte to September 30, 2022 for the purposes of hearing this motion.  At the time, the Court indicated discovery remained cut off.

Plaintiff argues there is good cause to continue the trial date because the parties have yet to complete expert discovery as both parties’ designated experts’ availability has prevented completion before the current trial date.  Plaintiff contends there will be no prejudice because a continuance would facilitate more time and greater cooperation in expert witness depositions.  Plaintiff indicates Defendant’s counsel has agreed to a continuance and will not oppose the motion.

The Court notes that the expert discovery cut-off has already passed.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.030 (“Any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings pertaining to a witness identified under Chapter 18 (commencing with Section 2034.010) on or before the 15th day, and to have motions concerning that discovery heard on or before the 10th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.”).)  Therefore, whether there is good cause to continue the trial date depends on whether there is good cause to reopen discovery pursuant to CCP section 2024.050.

CCP section 2024.050 provides that “[o]n 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)   “In exercising its discretion to grant of deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following: [¶] (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[,] [¶] (4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.”  (Id., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

While Plaintiff has not moved to reopen discovery, the Court construes Plaintiff’s request to continue expert-related discovery deadlines as a request to reopen discovery pursuant to CCP section 2024.050 for the purpose of completing expert discovery.  The Court finds that as the parties have yet to complete expert discovery due to their experts’ unavailability, there is good cause to reopen discovery pursuant to CCP section 2024.050.  No opposition has been filed contending otherwise.

As the Court is reopening expert discovery, the Court finds there is good cause to continue the trial to allow the parties to complete expert discovery.  The Court further finds a continuance would not prejudice Defendant because, according to Plaintiff, Defendant has agreed to a continuance.  Defendant has not filed an opposition contending otherwise.  Plaintiff is thus entitled to a court order continuing the September 30, 2022 trial date.

VI.     CONCLUSION

          In light of the foregoing, the motion to continue trial and expert-related discovery deadlines only is GRANTED.

The Court orders trial continued from September 30, 2022 to __________, 2023 at 8:30 a.m., in Department 27.  The Final Status Conference is continued from September 16, 2022 to ____________, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., in Department 27.  Expert discovery cut-off dates shall be based on the new trial date.  All other discovery remains cut off.

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.