Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV29820, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29820    Hearing Date: September 2, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff Brytni Grausso filed her Complaint for the wrongful death of her mother, Decedent Kymberli T. Williams, against Defendants The Regents of the University of California (“Regents”); Dr. Matthew Quirk, M.D. (“Quirk”); Dr. Bashir Akhavan Tafti, M.D. (“Akhavan Tafti”); Dr. Edward W. Lee, M.D. (“Lee”); and Does 1 through 100, inclusive.  On September 29, 2020, Plaintiffs Brytni Grausso and Brandon Grausso filed their First Amended Complaint.

On December 23, 2020, Defendant Regents filed their Answer.  On January 4, 2021, Defendants Quirk, Akhavan Tafti, and Lee filed their Answer.

On February 25, 2021, the parties filed their Stipulation and Proposed Order Re: Dismissal of Quirk, Akhavan Tafti, and Lee.  The Court signed the proposed order on March 17, 2021, which led to the dismissal of those three defendants from this action.

On July 19, 2022, Defendant Regents filed their Motion for Summary Judgment.  The Motion for Summary Judgment is currently scheduled to be heard on May 16, 2023.

On August 8, 2022, Defendant Regents filed their Motion to Continue Trial and Trial-Related Dates. Trial is currently scheduled for November 3, 2022.

Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant Regents’ Motion to Continue Trial and Trial-Related Dates.

The Court now considers Defendant Regents’ Motion to Continue Trial and All Trial-Related Dates.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (a).)  Nevertheless, the trial court has the discretion to continue trial dates.  (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.)  Each request for a 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, subd. (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 because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel, but only 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, subd. (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 due to  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.  (Cal. Rules of Court., Rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)

III.      DISCUSSION

          Defendant Regents requests that the Court: (1) continue Trial from its current date of November 3, 2022 to a date of June 22, 2023 or a date thereafter which is convenient with this Court; (2) extend all trial-related dates, including discovery cut-offs and law and motion deadlines; and (3) set the Final Status Conference to June 8, 2023, or a date thereafter which is convenient with this Court.  (Mot. to Continue Trial and All Trial-Related Dates, p. 2:1–4.)  Defendant Regents argues that this would be “appropriate under the circumstances in light of Defendant’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment which although scheduled for the earliest available hearing date, is not set to be heard until May 16, 2023, which is after the current trial date of November 3, 2022.” (Id., p. 4:15–17.)  Defendant Regents further argues that they will be prejudiced if their Motion for Summary Judgment is not heard.  (Id., p. 4: 17 –18.)  Although there has already been one continuance in this matter by stipulation of the parties (from February 3, 2022 to November 3, 2022), this would be Defendant Regents’ first unilateral request for a trial continuance.  (Id., p. 19–21.)

          Plaintiff has not filed a response to this motion or indicated to the Court that it would be prejudiced or otherwise harmed by the granting of a continuance in this matter.

          After considering the papers, the Court finds that Defendant Regents has demonstrated good cause and that a brief continuance of the impending trial date is warranted in this matter.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (c)(6).)  This would be only the second continuance of the trial date in this matter, and there has not been any showing of prejudice to Plaintiffs were the continuance to be granted.  Rather, Defendant Regents persuasively argues that they would be prejudiced were it not to have its Motion for Summary Judgment heard prior to Trial.  Accordingly, the Court shall continue Trial and all trial-related dates.  

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s Motion to Continue Trial and All Trial-Related Dates is GRANTED. The trial date is continued from November 3, 2022 to _________________.  The Final Status Conference is continued to ______________. The discovery deadline is continued to ____________. The law and motion deadline is continued to __________.

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’s 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.