Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV23428, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23428    Hearing Date: August 24, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On June 24, 2021, Plaintiffs Dolores Espinoza and Agustin Espinoza (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Lakewood Regional Medical Center, Inc. (“LRMC”) and Radoslav Raychev, I, M.D. for medical malpractice.

On June 17, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant LRMC filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants AMN Healthcare, Inc.; John Boyle, R.N.; Bhavik Thakkar, M.D.; Barugar Ravi, M.D.; Arthur Gelb, M.D.; Arthur F. Gelb Medical Corporation; and Moes 1-30 for (1) total equitable indemnity, (2) partial equitable indemnity, (3) contribution and repayment, and (4) declaratory relief.  Meditec Staffing Company was subsequently substituted in for Moe 1.

On July 27, 2022, Cross-Defendant Barugur Ravi, M.D. (erroneously sued as Barugar Ravi, M.D.) (“Cross-Defendant”) filed a motion to continue trial.  No opposition has been filed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).)  Continuances are thus generally disfavored.  (Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (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, subd. (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, subd. (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, subd. (d).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Cross-Defendant seeks a court order continuing the trial from December 22, 2022 to September 6, 2023, or a date thereafter convenient to the Court and parties.  Cross-Defendant also seeks a continuance of all pretrial motion and discovery dates.

Cross-Defendant argues there is good cause to continue the trial date because Cross-Defendant was brought into this case via cross-complaint on June 17, 2022 and filed his answer on July 25, 2022.  Cross-Defendant argues there is insufficient time to complete discovery, including subpoenaing records, propounding written discovery, taking depositions, and obtaining a defense medical examination of Plaintiff Dolores Espinoza.  Cross-Defendant contends there is also insufficient time to retain expert witnesses and prepare an adequate defense at trial.  Additionally, Cross-Defendant indicates he would like to file a motion for summary judgment and the first available hearing date is August 4, 2023.  Cross-Defendant asserts no party will suffer any prejudice if the trial is continued.

The Court finds there is good cause to continue the trial date to allow Cross-Defendant to complete discovery, prepare for trial, and have a motion for summary judgment heard.  The Court further finds a continuance would not prejudice the other parties.  No oppositions have been filed contending otherwise.  Cross-Defendant is thus entitled to a court order continuing the December 22, 2022 trial date.

VI.     CONCLUSION

          In light of the foregoing, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

The Court orders trial continued from December 22, 2022 to __________, 2023 at 8:30 a.m., in Department 27.  The Final Status Conference is continued from December 8, 2022, 2022 to ____________, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., in Department 27.  Discovery and motion cut-off dates shall 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.