Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV20258, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV20258    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On May 28, 2020, plaintiff Kyong Soon Kang (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant DK Sol, Inc. dba Dangki Woman Spa (“Spa”). Plaintiff alleges she fell and suffered personal injury on August 27, 2018. On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to add Yushun Piao (“Piao”) as Doe 1.

Trial is currently scheduled for November 23, 2022.  On September 2, 2022, Spa and Piao (collectively, “Defendants”) filed this motion for an order continuing the trial date as well as all discovery and motion cut off deadlines for at least 300 days so that their motion for summary judgment could be heard. The motion is opposed by Plaintiff. 

On September 30, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on this motion after expressing that it was not inclined to grant a trial continuance when no motion for summary judgment was on file.  The Court also noted that it was not inclined to extend the discovery deadlines. 

On October 10, 2022, Defendants filed a supplemental brief and declarations. 

Plaintiff did not file a reply. 

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 filed their motion for summary judgment on October 10, 2022, which satisfies the Court’s doubts in continuing the trial date so that Defendant’s motion may be heard on September 28, 2023.  Defendants also submit a supplemental brief explaining that Piao recently identified a new witness, Yong Hee (“YH”), who was not previously identified because Piao was concerned about YH’s immigration status.  Defense counsel was not informed of YH’s existence until after Piao was deposed and counsel was reviewing Piao’s responses with her.  Defendants contend YH was the only person who witnessed Plaintiff’s fall and they will need to take her deposition and retain a human factors expert to review YH’s testimony and opine on Plaintiff’s movements because Plaintiff testified that she did not recall how she fell.  This is sufficient to convince the Court that good cause exists for a continuance of discovery cut-off so that percipient and expert discovery may be completed.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued from November 23, 2022 to October 31, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from November 9, 2022 to October 17, 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.