Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV48137, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48137    Hearing Date: October 17, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On December 16, 2020, plaintiff Soo Yen Oh (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Toll Brothers, Inc. and The Canyons at Porter Ranch Community Association (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from a trip and fall.  Trial is currently scheduled for November 2, 2022.  On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order continuing the trial date for six months.  Defendants filed an opposition brief on October 3, 2022.  Plaintiff filed a reply brief on October 7, 2022. 

On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff separately filed a motion for an order reopening discovery, which is scheduled to be heard on January 25, 2023 after the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to shorten time or advance the hearing date. 

As Plaintiff’s basis for continuing trial is to complete discovery, the Court considers the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050. 

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

First, Plaintiff seeks a continuance of about six months in order to complete discovery, specifically, the depositions of each defendant’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”).  The depositions were originally noticed for May 5 and May 6, 2022, but were continued to promote settlement at a mediation that took place on August 10, 2022.  Plaintiff states that after the unsuccessful mediation, however, Defendants would not stipulate to a trial continuance and refused to produce their PMKs. 

In their opposition brief, Defendants argue that Plaintiff had nearly two months to conduct discovery since the date of the failed mediation but made no effort to do so.  On reply, Plaintiff claims that this two-month period was spent meet and conferring and that Defendants refused to produce their PMKs.

Second, Plaintiff claims that their expert witness, Sangdo Park, M.D. (“Dr. Park”) is not available for trial as currently scheduled.  Defendants argue that this reason should be disregarded because Plaintiff did not submit a declaration by Dr. Park or provide a reason for Dr. Park’s unavailability, or even specify Dr. Park’s availability.  Surprisingly, Plaintiff did not attempt to remedy this mistake on reply by submitting additional information regarding Dr. Park’s schedule in a supplemental declaration.  Plaintiff only attaches an email from Dr. Park indicating that he is available for his deposition on November 21, 2022.  (Supp. Declaration of Calvin J. Park, Ex. C.)  Therefore, the Court does not consider Dr. Park’s purported unavailability at trial as a basis for continuing the trial date.

In his reply brief, Plaintiff argues that continuing trial and reopening discovery would be fair for both sides because Defendants still need to depose Dr. Park.  Defendants concede that a one-month trial continuance would be acceptable in order to accommodate Dr. Park’s schedule.  But defense counsel declares that he has two cases scheduled for trial in March 2023, and any appreciable continuance in this case would affect his two other matters.  Notably, defense counsel does not identify those cases or identify how long they have been pending, nor does counsel identify the likelihood of those cases proceeding to trial in March 2023. 

Overall, the Court finds that the interests of justice are best served by a brief continuance of the trial and the discovery deadlines.  This would only be the second continuance in this matter, and it would afford all parties the opportunity to complete fact and expert discovery and file any discovery motions, if necessary.  

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued from November 2, 2022 to January 26, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from October 19, 2022 to January 12, 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.