Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV25460, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV25460    Hearing Date: August 4, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On July 7, 2020, plaintiff Sophia A. Byrd-Morrison (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) asserting causes of action for negligence, premises liability, including a count for dangerous condition of public property.  Defendant filed an answer on September 14, 2020. 

Trial is currently scheduled for August 29, 2022.  On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to continue the trial date to November 29, 2022 or the soonest date thereafter that accommodates 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

Plaintiff argues that a continuance is needed because Plaintiff unexpectedly tested positive for COVID-19 and was forced to cancel a defense medical examination which had been scheduled for later that day.  (Motion, Yamada Decl., ¶ 3.)  The defense medical examination was to be performed by Dr. Richard C. Rosenberg on June 6, 2022.  Dr. Rosenberg’s office has not provided any dates for rescheduling the examination despite two calls made by Plaintiff’s counsel on June 6, 2022, and June 9, 2022.  Therefore, on June 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to continue the trial date. 

Plaintiff’s counsel avers that Defendant agreed to the trial continuance and signed a stipulation to that effect.  (See Motion, Yamada Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 3.)  This would be the second time trial has been continued in this matter.  Trial was first set for January 4, 2022, but continued to August 29, 2022 by stipulation. 

Based on the reasons provided in Plaintiff’s moving papers, the Court finds good cause for a trial continuance.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued from August 29, 2022 to December 9, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from August 15, 2022 to November 23, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27.  Plaintiff does not explicitly request a continuance of the discovery and motion cut-off deadlines, but based on the reasons provided for a continuance, the Court orders that all discovery and motion cut-off deadlines will 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.