Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV23465, Date: 2022-12-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV23465 Hearing Date: December 27, 2022 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL
DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff(s), vs. Defendant(s). |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: Dept.
27 1:30
p.m. |
I.
INTRODUCTION
On
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
Plaintiff
requests a continuance of the trial date and the reopening of discovery because
she claims that her prior counsel, Armand Tinkerian, failed to adequately
prepare the case for trial. Plaintiff’s
current counsel, Mariano Alvarez, states that he believed that he was substituting
in because of Mr. Tinkerian’s health and that the case was ready for
trial. Mr. Alvarez states that
Plaintiff’s medical expenses, both past and future, were not fully disclosed by
Mr. Tinkerian to opposing counsel, and he discovered this when he was preparing
the exhibit and witness list. Plaintiff
allegedly discussed the procedures and treatments she underwent, which were not
disclosed during discovery, including a shoulder surgery, uterine injuries, a
seizure, and a stroke. Plaintiff contends
that she must still obtain her medical records and find experts who are willing
to prepare reports and testify in time.
In opposition, Defendant
argues that there is no need to reopen discovery because the medical records
and treatments that Plaintiff identified are not relevant to the injuries she
sustained from the underlying incident on July 16, 2017. Defendant also states that Plaintiff has had
the opportunity to identify all her medical providers in written discovery
because she signed verifications. Defendant
contends that Plaintiff did not present with any complaints related to this
matter regarding her low back, shoulders, or radiating lower extremities, and
that these complaints were the result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred
on April 3, 2018. Plaintiff underwent an
independent medical examination on September 6, 2022, and had the opportunity
to disclose all injuries, but she only complained of headaches, abdominal and
pelvic pain, seizures, and depression.
She did not complain of neck pain, shoulder pain, low back pain, or
radiating bilateral lower extremity pain.
She also did not allege that her stroke from November 5, 2021 was
connected with this accident. Defendant adds
that reopening discovery and continuing trial is unnecessary because Plaintiff
may obtain her records by way of an executed release and can provide
supplemental discovery responses identifying any additional information if
necessary.
The Court agrees with Defendant that any
additional facts that Plaintiff would like to provide does not require
re-opening discovery, but recognizes that if Plaintiff would like to designate
new experts, then expert discovery would need to be reopened.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
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.