Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV36262, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36262    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On or about July 10, 2019, Plaintiff Rufina Mak (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Silvia Xiaoping Pan, Phd. and Mao L.Ac. (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging one cause of action for negligence.  

The Complaint alleges the following. Defendants were and still are health care providers that are engaged in rendering acupuncture services at their office and principal place of business, 942 E. Garvey Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91755. (Compl., ¶ 2.) On or about July 10, 2019, Plaintiff sought acupuncture treatment from Defendants for pain. (Compl., ¶ 5.) After the treatment, Plaintiff was seen in a hospital emergency room and was informed that one or more of the acupuncture needles inserted by defendants into Plaintiff’s body had punctured Plaintiff’s lung and caused it to collapse. (Compl., ¶ 7.) As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff will continue to suffer permanent injury to her body among other damages. (Compl., ¶¶ 6, 7.)

On August 8, 2022, defendant Silvia Xiaoping Pan, Phd. (“Dr. Pan”) filed the instant motion to continue trial.

No opposition to the motion has been filed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).)

          “A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (b).)

          “Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c).)

          “In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: ¶ (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; ¶ … ¶ (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;…¶ …¶ (7) The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; ¶ … ¶ 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

Dr. Pan submits her counsel’s declaration in support of her instant motion to continue trial. Defense counsel attests to the following facts. The initial trial date was automatically set to March 22, 2022, roughly 18 months following the filing date of the Complaint on September 22, 2020, under the local rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (Motion, Wu Decl., ¶ 3.) The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the judicial system was still in its infancy at the time and, by stipulation of the parties, the trial date was continued to December 12, 2022. (Wu Decl., ¶ 3.) Therefore, only one continuance has been granted so far. (Wu Decl., ¶ 3.) Since May 2022, Dr. Pan started looking for a viable hearing date for a Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication, but the earliest available hearing date that would allow for the statutory 75-day notice is not until March 13, 2023. (Wu Decl., ¶ 5.) Therefore, Dr. Pan asks the Court to continue the trial to April 2023. (Wu Decl., ¶ 6.)

The Court takes judicial notice of the register of actions. The Court notes that Dr. Pan has reserved a Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment on March 13, 2023. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d) [providing that a court may take judicial notice of court records of this state].)

The Court finds good cause to grant the unopposed motion in light of the defense counsel’s declaration.

IV.      CONCLUSION

          The Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

          The Court orders that the trial is continued from December 12, 2022, to Tuesday, April 18, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., in Department 27. The Final Status Conference is continued from November 28, 2022, to Tuesday, April 4, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 27. Any discovery cut-off (including expert witness exchange) 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’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.