Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV44666, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44666    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 20, 2020, plaintiff Sarkis Avagyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), Jose Gabriel Martinez (“Martinez”), and Eugene Min Lee, along with the State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol, arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on December 23, 2019.  At this time, only Lyft and Martinez remain as defendants in this matter.  Trial is currently scheduled for January 4, 2023.  Plaintiff seeks an order continuing the trial date to a date in March 2023 and reopening discovery.  The motion is opposed by Lyft. 

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 the trial date should be continued and discovery should be reopened because new facts have been discovered during Martinez’s deposition on March 15, 2022.  Plaintiff contends these new facts support additional theories of liability against Defendant and has filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint.  Plaintiff seeks to add new causes of action against Lyft, including negligence/gross negligence, negligent supervision, fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.  The factual basis for this amendment is the discovery that Lyft knew that Martinez was an unauthorized driver on the Lyft Platform and had blocked Martinez from driving for Lyft in late 2018 based on two infractions related to running red lights.  At the time of the accident underlying this action, Martinez was driving for Lyft that night using his brother’s account because he was blocked from using the platform for himself.  The motion is scheduled to be heard on November 18, 2022. 

Plaintiff states additional time will be needed to conduct discovery as to these new causes of action.  Plaintiff explains that written discovery was cut-off one day after Martinez’s deposition and that he waited until September 6, 2022, to file this motion because the parties agreed to attend mediation on August 4, 2022, and Plaintiff’s counsel was engaged in trial from August 5 to August 24, 2022. 

In its opposition brief, Lyft argues that Plaintiff made no reference to potentially amending his Complaint until August 4, 2022.  Fact discovery has been closed since April 20, 2022, after Plaintiff refused to allow the fact discovery deadline to track the new trial date.  Lyft also argues that if this continuance is granted so that Plaintiff can pursue his claims, the case could stretch on for several more months, if not years.  Lyft also says that parties and witnesses will have to be re-deposed. 

On reply, Plaintiff argues that if he had known that Martinez was an unauthorized driver on Lyft’s platform, he never would have insisted that the fact discovery deadline remain tied to the May 20, 2022 trial date.  Plaintiff states he has conducted investigation into Lyft’s history after learning how easy it was for Martinez to use his brother’s credentials to log onto the platform. 

Plaintiff would not have been able to obtain discovery regarding Martinez’s unauthorized status on Lyft’s platform after written discovery closed on March 16, 2022.  Therefore, Lyft’s argument that Plaintiff has not been diligent is not very persuasive.  Additionally, Lyft’s claim that it will be prejudiced by a continuance is not persuasive because Lyft is essentially protesting against having to defend itself against Plaintiff’s claims. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued from January 4, 2023, to April 19, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from December 21, 2022 to April 5, 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.