Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV44385, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44385    Hearing Date: September 19, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 19, 2020, plaintiff Christopher Gines (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Raiser, LLC (“Rasier”), Rasier-CA, LLC (“Rasier- CA”) (collectively, “Uber”), and Gary Edward Mijangos (“Mijangos”) arising from a July 30, 2019, motor vehicle versus pedestrian collision.  Trial is currently scheduled for November 23, 2022.  Uber seeks an order continuing the trial date by six months to May 26, 2023, as well as all pretrial discovery and motion cutoff dates.  Mijangos filed a notice of joinder to Uber’s motion.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.    

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

Uber argues good cause exists to continue the trial date because additional discovery needs to be completed.  First, Plaintiff has refused to undergo diagnostic testing to confirm his urological injury.  Plaintiff previously claimed he suffered from retrograde ejaculation as a complication of a spinal surgery but is now claiming that it is anejaculation after his treating urologist, Dr. S. Adam Ramin, testified that he does not believe Plaintiff has retrograde ejaculation.  Retrograde ejaculation can be objectively confirmed by a diagnostic test, but no such objective test exists for anejaculation.  Uber argues it is entitled to determine which condition Plaintiff claims, understand its potential available defenses, conduct the appropriate discovery, and have the results evaluated by experts.  On August 17, 2022, Uber propounded requests for admission on Plaintiff to determine whether Plaintiff will admit he does not have retrograde ejaculation.  Uber has also been unable to depose Plaintiff’s prior girlfriend, Lorena Torres, as well as Plaintiff’s new girlfriend, identified to date only as “Bianca.”  Second, on July 5, 2022, Plaintiff consulted with an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Pasquale Montesano, with potential plans to undergo cervical spine surgery.  Plaintiff also seeks to explore his fertility options with a fertility treatment center. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that it does not matter whether he suffers from retrograde ejaculation or anejaculation because the result is the same: he cannot impregnate his partner without intervention or assistance from a fertility doctor.  Further, Plaintiff states that Defendant has been aware of the potential for surgery and his decision to undertake treatment is not a reason to continue trial. 

On reply, Uber contends that Plaintiff himself has delayed discovery by refusing to submit to a neuropsychological examination without a court order and disposing of his cell phone during his litigation, which contained relevant evidence.  Plaintiff also refused to participate in diagnostic testing by Uber’s urology expert and will require Uber to seek of leave of Court.  In addition, Plaintiff has failed to provide the contact information of Ms. Torres and even deleted all photographs of her so that Uber could not identify her.  Furthermore, Uber argues that additional time is needed to evaluate whether Plaintiff’s recent resurgence of cervical spine pain is due to the accident or other pre-existing or subsequently occurring factors. 

Uber has demonstrated that good cause exists for a continuance.  Furthermore, trial has only been continued once in this action and a second continuance will not prejudice any party.   

IV.         CONCLUSION

Uber’s motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued from November 23, 2022 to June 13, 2023, which is the first available trial date after May 23, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from November 9, 2022 to May 30, 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.