Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV11354, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11354    Hearing Date: August 31, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On March 24, 2021, Plaintiff Gabriel Olab Garcia Bravo filed the instant action against Defendants Jianping Sui and Zhunxiong Cao for motor vehicle negligence.

          Trial is currently set for September 21, 2022.

          On August 8, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion to continue trial and related dates. Plaintiff opposes.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

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

Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (2) the unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (3) the unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (4) the substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice, (5) the addition of a new party if the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or if 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. (Ibid.)

In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider all the facts and circumstances relevant to the determination.  Courts may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:  (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to 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; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial. (See generally, CRC, rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  

Additionally, factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the proximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (CRC, rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

III.     DISCUSSION

          Here, Defendants move to continue the trial and related dates to April 26, 2023, or the earliest date thereafter, based on unavailability of designated trial counsel and the parties need to complete essential discovery. Specifically, designated trial counsel will be engaged in a six-week trial in another matter that was filed in 2017. Further, Plaintiff underwent psychological examination with a clinical psychologist, Ana L. Nogales, Ph.D., ABPS, FACFE including psychometric testing, also known as neuropsychological testing. The raw test data has never been exchanged or provided and Defendants contend that they would be severely prejudiced to proceed to trial without the proper exchange and opportunity to evaluate Plaintiff. The necessity to evaluate Plaintiff for psychological and/or neuropsychological examination was not apparent until the completion of the neurology examination performed by Dr. Ludwig in July 2022 where he determined Plaintiff’s complaints were not the result of traumatic brain injury, thus requiring a psychological or neuropsychological examination to evaluate the previous records and Plaintiff’s complaints. Defendants also note that there has been no trial continuance.

          Plaintiff partially opposes the motion arguing that Defendants slept on this case and failed to set a neuropsychological exam. Plaintiff requests that if the Court grants the motion, that discovery be limited to expert discovery.

          In reply, Defendants argue that (1) they need the raw data from Dr. Nogales and to depose her which they have been attempting to do, (2) they still need a neuropsychological exam which Plaintiff refused to attend prior to the discovery cut off date and for which there is a pending motion to compel set for after the trial date.

          As this case was filed in 2021 and there have been no prior trial continuances, based on the outstanding discovery concerns and trial counsels’ unavailability, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial dates and discovery cut off. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that discovery should be limited to expert discovery. Defendants do not address this limitation in reply.

IV.     CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED with the limitations set forth above.  The trial date is continued to April 27, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.  The Final Status Conference is continued to April 13, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.  Discovery and motions cut off deadlines remain related to the current trial date of September 21, 2022, except for expert discovery.  The hearing on the motion to compel Plaintiff’s examination currently scheduled for September 28, 2022, at 1:30 p.m.will separately address that issue.

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.