Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV24447, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24447    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On June 29, 2020, plaintiff Moas Khanian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant All Action Security Consulting Group, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that on May 28, 2020, he was running after three thieves who had stolen a ring from his jewelry store when Defendant’s security guard stopped him, restrained him, and threw him to the ground. On October 27, 2020, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Sergio Cobian (“Cobian”) as Doe 1.

 Trial is currently scheduled for October 26, 2022.  On August 4, 2022, Defendant filed this motion for an order continuing trial to March 27, 2023, or as soon thereafter, and to continue all trial related dates.  On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief.  On October 17, 2022, Defendant filed a reply brief stating that it requested a trial date of November 25, 2022, or as soon thereafter as permitted by the Court’s calendar. 

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

In its moving papers, Defendant argues that the trial should be continued because fact discovery has not yet been completed and Defendant needs additional time to issue written discovery and subpoena medical records because Plaintiff identified additional surgical procedures that he underwent at his deposition.  In its reply papers, Defendant vaguely claims that percipient and expert depositions still need to be completed and that Plaintiff’s medical records are needed.  (See Reply, Majd. Decl., ¶¶ 18.)  The only expert that Defendant identifies is Plaintiff’s damages expert, P. Richard Emmanuel, M.D. (“Dr. Emmanuel”).  Defendant claims the deposition of Dr. Emmanuel on October 4th was not completed because the deposition only took two hours and Dr. Emmanuel produced none of the records sought.  Defendant does not include any of the transcript indicating that Dr. Emmanuel did not comply with the deposition notice, nor does Defendant identify the missing documents.

Nowhere in its moving or reply papers does Defendant address the issue of diligence.  Defendant does not explain why Plaintiff’s medical records were not subpoenaed earlier, especially as Plaintiff was deposed in August 2021, or why Plaintiff’s sons were not subpoenaed earlier.  Without any cogent explanation for the delay in conducting routine discovery, the Court cannot find that good cause exists to continue trial or reopen discovery, even though the action is only a little over two years old.   

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion is DENIED. 

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.