Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV01496, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV01496    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On January 13, 2020, Plaintiffs Charles Sampson Jr., Heather Sampson, and Charles Sampson (deceased) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”), City of Compton, County of Los Angeles, Caltrans, and State of California.  Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants Metro, City of Compton, County of Los Angeles, Caltrans, State of California, The Crystal Casino, and Does 1 through 100 on October 19, 2020, asserting causes of action for (1) dangerous condition of public property – Government Code § 830, (2) premises liability, (3) negligence, and (4) wrongful death – CCP § 377.60.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amendment to complaint to substitute American Curvet Investment, LLC in for Doe 2.

On March 5, 2021, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court continued the trial from July 12, 2021 to February 15, 2022.

On August 23, 2021, American Curvet Investment, LLC filed a cross-complaint against Zoes 1-100 for (1) implied contractual indemnity, (2) equitable indemnity, (3) express indemnity, (4) breach of written contract, (5) breach of oral contract, (6) breach of implied contract, (7) negligence, (8) declaratory relief re: duty to defend, (9) declaratory relief re: duty to indemnify, (10) declaratory relief re: contractual duties, (11) contribution, and (12) apportionment of fault.

On November 18, 2021, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court continued the trial from February 15, 2022 to October 5, 2022.

On July 25, 2022, Metro filed a motion to continue trial.  No opposition has been filed.

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.  (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).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant Metro seeks a court order continuing the trial from October 5, 2022 to May 15, 2023, or the nearest available date thereafter.  Metro also seeks a continuance of all related discovery and motion cut-off dates.

Metro argues there is good cause to continue the trial date because Metro needs additional time to investigate the status of all potentially omitted heirs and join them, if proper.  Metro indicates that in Decedent’s medical records dated 2.8 months before his death, there is a reference to Decedent’s wife by the name of Shambre Sampson.  While Metro has been unable to locate Decedent’s wife, Metro has identified two potential biological children of Decedent who are not current parties.  Metro also provides that Plaintiff Charles Sampson, Jr. is now deceased such that the pleadings need to be corrected and that Plaintiff Heather Sampson is a minor and no guardian ad litem has been appointed.

Metro further contends there is good cause to continue the trial date as the first available date for Metro’s motion for summary judgment is April 13, 2023 and the depositions of Plaintiffs have yet to go forward due to the unavailability of Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel.

The Court finds there is good cause to continue the trial date to allow (1) Metro to further investigate the issue regarding potentially omitted heirs, (2) Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings to account for Charles Sampson, Jr.’s death and Heather Sampson’s status as a minor and for a guardian ad litem to be appointed, (3) Metro’s motion for summary judgment to be heard, and (4) the parties to complete discovery.  The Court further finds a continuance would not prejudice the other parties.  No oppositions have been filed contending otherwise.  Metro is thus entitled to a court order continuing the October 5, 2022 trial date.

VI.     CONCLUSION

          In light of the foregoing, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

The Court orders trial continued from October 5, 2022 to __________, 2023 at 8:30 a.m., in Department 27.  The Final Status Conference is continued from September 21, 2022 to ____________, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., in Department 27.  Discovery and motion cut-off dates shall 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.