Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV33744, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV33744 Hearing Date: December 7, 2022 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL
DISTRICT
Plaintiff(s), vs. CITY
OF GLENDALE, et al., Defendant(s). |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT CITY OF GLENDALE’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Dept.
27 1:30
p.m. December
7, 2022 |
I.
INTRODUCTION
On September 24, 2019, plaintiff Vahe Leon
Andonian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant City of Glendale
(“Defendant”) arising from a February 25, 2019, trip and fall on the sidewalk.
Plaintiff also named the County of Los Angeles as a defendant, but filed a
request to dismiss it on April 22, 2022, and the dismissal was entered on April
25, 2022.
Trial is currently scheduled for February 28,
2023. On November 7, 2022, Defendant
filed this motion for an order continuing the trial date to August 2023, and to
have all discovery and motion cut-off dates be based on the new trial
date. The motion is unopposed.
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 to grant the instant motion as Defendant’s
counsel, Edward Kang, recently took over this case from previous defense
counsel and needs additional time to conduct discovery, potentially file a
dispositive motion, and otherwise prepare this case for trial. Mr. Kang declares that he started as a
Principal Assistant City Attorney on October 3, 2022 and is still coming up to
speed on this matter. Mr. Kang does not
identify what discovery remains outstanding or what the basis for a dispositive
motion would be. However, in light of
defense counsel’s recent acquisition of the matter, the Court grants the
requested continuance.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Trial is continued from February 28, 2023, to
August 8, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.
The final status conference is continued from February 14, 2023 to July
25, 2023 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.