Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV07934, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07934    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. INTRODUCTION

On March 1, 2021, plaintiff Doris McDaniel (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Sign Industries, Inc. (“Sign Industries”) and Kevin White arising from an incident that occurred on March 15, 2019.  On September 16, 2021, Plaintiff named Kevin Kneedler (“Kneedler”) as Doe 1. 

Trial is currently scheduled for August 29, 2022.  On July 1, 2022, Sign Industries and Kneedler (collectively, “Defendants”) filed this motion to continue trial and all related deadlines to sometime in April 2023.  A stipulation to continue trial to October 31, 2022, filed on June 15, 2022, was rejected on July 5, 2022, because a motion to continue trial had been filed.  Plaintiff opposes the motion to continue the trial and requests that trial be rescheduled to a date in the fall of 2022 as reflected in the rejected stipulation.  

1. 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).)

1. DISCUSSION

Defendants request a trial continuance on the grounds that counsel, Michael Yerzinkyan, is not available for trial until April 2023.  Mr. Yerzinkyan received this case from Susan K. Andersen, who is no longer with Diederich & Associates.  (Yerzinkyan Decl., ¶ 4.)  He will be out of the country for the latter part of September 2022 and has “five (5) or more trial dates through March of 2023.”  (Yerzinkyan Decl., ¶ 8.)  Counsel also declares he needs additional time to conduct discovery and review all pleadings and discovery in this matter.  Specifically, additional time is needed to retain and receive expert analysis to resolve the issue of liability and the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries.  (Yerzinkyan Decl., ¶ 10.)  After discovery is completed, the parties will be able to attempt settlement of the case via informal settlement negotiations or mediation.  (Yerzinkyan Decl., ¶ 11.) 

Plaintiff concedes that “good cause” exists to continue the trial due to the unavailability of trial counsel and does not oppose a short continuance of the trial.  She requests that any continuance be limited to 60 to 90 days given the age of the case, as well as the fact that she is 78 years old and a cancer survivor. 

On reply, Defendants request a trial date in February 2023 instead of April 2023 and reiterate that this is the first request for a trial continuance. 

This is the first continuance granted in this matter and the case is not yet 2 years old.  Given defense counsel’s trial schedule and need to become familiar with the case, the Court finds good cause for a continuance of the trial date and all discovery and motion cut-off deadlines.

There are no trial dates currently available in December, January, February, March or April 2023, and the earliest trial date after April 2023 is May 20, 2023.  The Court is not inclined to grant a continuance of 10 months without additional detail from defense counsel regarding each of his cases scheduled to go trial or the discovery that remains to be conducted.  Therefore, the Court schedules trial in this matter for November 10, 2022.  

1. CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part.  Trial is continued from August 29, 2022 to November 10, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from August 15, 2022, to October 27, 2022 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.