Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV42431, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV42431    Hearing Date: August 29, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On November 26, 2019, Richard Harris (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, initiated the present action by filing a Complaint against Park La Brea, LLC, and Universal Protection Service, LP (erroneously sued as Allied Universal) (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged a single cause of action for “Premises Liability”. 

On June 18, 2021, Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike against Plaintiff’s Complaint.

On July 30, 2021, Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike against Plaintiff’s Complaint came before the Court for hearing.  Following argument, the Court sustained Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, with twenty (20) days leave to amend, and denied Defendant’s Motion to Strike as moot.

On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging a single cause of action for “Premises Liability”.

On January 6, 2022, Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike against Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Assault; (2) Battery; (3) Property Damage; (4) Premises Liability; (5) False Imprisonment; and (6) Punitive Damages.

On February 1, 2022, Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike against Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint came before the Court for hearing.  The Court sustained Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, with twenty (20) days leave to amend, and denied Defendant’s Motion to Strike as moot.  The Court deemed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on January 24, 2022, filed.

On March 3, 2022, Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike against Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

On March 29, 2022, Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike against Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint came before the Court for hearing.  The Court overruled Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s cause of action for Premises Liability.  The Court sustained Defendant’s Demurrer against Plaintiff’s causes of action for Assault, Battery, Property Damages, and False Imprisonment, with thirty (30) days leave to amend.  Defendant’s Motion to Strike against Plaintiff’s prayer for Punitive Damages was granted. 

On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint, alleging the following cause of action: (1) Premises Liability; (2) Assault; (3) Battery; (4) False Imprisonment; (5) Vicarious Liability; (6) Negligence; (7) Defamation; and (8) Civil Rights Damages.

On June 2, 2022, Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike against Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint.

On June 27, 2022, Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike against Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint came before the Court for hearing.  The Court, ultimately, sustained Defendant’s Demurrer with respect to Plaintiff’s causes of action for Negligence, Defamation, Civil Rights Liability, and Vicarious Liability, without leave to amend.  The Court, additionally, overruled Defendant’s Demurrer with respect to Plaintiff’s causes of action for Assault, Battery, and False Imprisonment.  Defendant’s accompanying Motion to Strike was denied as moot.  The Court ordered Defendant to file an Answer within thirty (30) days.

On July 26, 2022, Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP filed an Answer.

On August 1, 2022, Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP filed a Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Pre-Trial Dates.

On August 3, 2022, Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP filed the following three (3) discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Richard Harris’ Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One); (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Richard Harris’ Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One); and (3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Richard Harris’ Responses to Request for Admissions (Set One).

The Court now considers Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP’s Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Pre-Trial Dates.

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.  (Cal. Rules of Court., Rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)

          “On motion of any party, the [C]ourt 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 under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2016.040.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)   

          In exercising its discretion to grant or 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, 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 Universal Protection Service, LP (“Defendant”) moves for an Order continuing the current trial date of November 8, 2022 by six (6) months to approximately May 15, 2023, on the ground Defendant has been unable to complete discovery in this action, despite Defendant’s diligent efforts.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (c)(6).)  Defendant, additionally, moves for an Order continuing all deadlines, including but not limited to the discovery and motion cut-off dates and expert disclosure deadlines, in accordance with the new trial date.  Despite service of the aforementioned Motion upon Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not filed any Opposition to Defendant’s request for a continuance.

          A.      Request to Continue Trial Date

          Following review of Defendant’s Motion, the Court finds good cause warrants a continuance of the current trial date of November 8, 2022 by six (6) months to approximately May 15, 2023.  Defendant demonstrates a continuance is necessary as Defendant has been unable to complete essential discovery in this action, despite Defendant’s diligent efforts.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (c)(6) [“Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: . . . (6) a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite [Defendant’s] diligent efforts.”].) 

          Initially, as can be ascertained from the “Background” Section of this Court’s Order, Plaintiff’s action only recently became ripe for the purposes of conducting discovery with respect to Plaintiff’s causes of action.  For approximately one (1) years’ time, Defendant was practically prevented from conducting discovery as the causes of action Plaintiff intended to pursue against Defendant had been unclear.  Specifically, from approximately June 18, 2021 through June 27, 2022, Plaintiff’s original Complaint, First Amended Complaint, Second Amended Complaint, and Third Amended Complaint have each been subject to Defendant’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike, upon which the Court has sustained various causes of action with, or without, leave to amend.  The causes of action which survived Demurrer, and which Plaintiff intends to advance against Defendant, only recently became clear one (1) month ago, following consideration of Defendant’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike against Third Amended Complaint.  The discovery deadline in this action, as governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, equates to October 7, 2022.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.)  Thus, following the Court’s consideration of the most recent Demurrer and Motion to Strike against Plaintiff’s operative Third Amended Complaint (on June 27, 2022), Defendant has been left with merely three (3) months to complete discovery in this action.  Such is insufficient, despite Defendant’s diligent efforts.

          Defendant additionally demonstrates discovery in this action has been further delayed by Plaintiff’s uncooperativeness.  Defendant demonstrates, despite service upon Plaintiff of Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production of Documents (Set One), and Request for Admissions (Set One), Plaintiff has failed to serve responses to any of the aforementioned discovery.  (Safaradi Decl., ¶ 6.)  Further, Plaintiff has communicated that he is unavailable to sit for deposition until late August, which, in turn, has delayed Defendant’s and Defendant’s expert’s ability to move forward with discovery and trial preparation.  (Id., ¶ 7.)

          The Court further notes that, if granted, this would be the first continuance in this action.  (Safaradi Decl., ¶ 8.)

          Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause supports Defendant’s request for a continuance of the current trial date of November 8, 2022 by six (6) months to approximately May 15, 2023, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subdivision (c)(6).  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (c)(6).)

          B.      Request to Continue Trial-Related Dates with New Trial Date

          At this juncture, the Court refuses to consider Defendant’s corresponding request to continue all trial-related dates and deadlines in accordance with the new trial date as Defendant has failed to accompany such a request with a meet and confer declaration, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (a).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a) [““On motion of any party, the [C]ourt 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 under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2016.040.”].)

          The Court continues Defendant’s Motion with respect to this sole request in order to allow Defendant to meet and confer with Plaintiff in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (a).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)  

IV.      CONCLUSION

            The trial date is
continued from November 8, 2022 to __________________ at 8:30 a.m. in
Department 27 of Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is
continued to ________________.  Trial
date related deadlines and discovery motion cut-offs will be related to 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’s 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.