Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV44070, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV44070    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On December 6, 2019, plaintiff Christine Newsome (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants America’s Best Value Inn & Suite Lancaster (“America’s Best Value Inn”), Turtle Hospitality, LLC (“Turtle”) (erroneously sued as “Turtle Hospital, LCC, Los Angeles”) and RLH Corporation, Los Angeles.  Trial is currently scheduled for November 29, 2022.  On October 4 2022, America’s Best Value Inn and Turtle (collectively, “Defendants”)  filed this motion for an order continuing the trial date to February 14, 2023.  Defendants also request that all discovery and trial related dates to be based on the enw trial date. 

On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief. 

On October 21, 2022, Defendants filed a reply brief.    

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

Defendants argue that good cause exists for a continuance because trial counsel has a specially set trial in another case on November 29, 2022 (Hinojosa v. Ashby, et al., Case No. CV-20-002439 Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus, Dept. 22 (“Hinojosa”))  Also, RHL Corporation was only recently served on July 7, 2022 and has not yet appeared, therefore additional time would be needed to conduct discovery due to the addition of a new party.  Plaintiff argues in her opposition brief that Defendants have not submitted sufficient evidence that defense counsel will actually be unavailable that day.  Defendants alleviate that concern by making a sufficient showing there is a strong likelihood of trial going forward in Hinojosa.  Defense counsel declares that there is no mediation set in Hinojosa and the parties’ settlement efforts have been unsuccessful because his client has offered $1 million policy limits and the plaintiff has asserted a $3-$4 million claim.  (Reply, Jones Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)  Defense counsel states that the parties are currently in expert discovery with over 30 retained and non-retained experts.  (Id., ¶ 5.)    

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendants’ have made an affirmative showing of good cause for a trial continuance.  However, as the requested trial date of February 14, 2023 is not available, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and continues trial from November 29, 2022 to the first available date after February 14, 2023, which is February 15, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from November 15, 2022 to February 1, 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.