Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV24654, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV24654    Hearing Date: August 15, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE IS GRANTED 

Background 

            On July 2, 2021, Sunny Zia (“Plaintiff”) initiated the present action by filing a Complaint against City of Long Beach, City of Long Beach Harbor Department, Mark Erickson, Tom Baldwin, and Stacey Lewis (collectively, “Defendants”). 

            On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants.  Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) To Redress Unlawful Harassment and Abusive Working Conditions; (2) To Redress Sex Discrimination; (3) To Redress National Origin Discrimination; (4) To Redress Unlawful Department of Fair Employment and Housing Discrimination; (5) To Redress Unlawful Whistleblower Retaliation; (6) To Redress Privacy Violations; and (7) To Redress Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation. 

            On July 20, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Continue Trial Date and Trial Related Dates. 

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.  (Cal. Rules of Court., Rule 3.1332, subd. (d).) 

            “On motion of any party, the [C]ourt 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 under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2016.040.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)  

            In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the Court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to the following: (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).) 

Discussion 

            Defendants, collectively, move for an Order continuing the trial date for four (4) months, from December 19, 2022 to approximately May 23, 2023, on the ground Defendants have been unable to complete discovery, despite Defendants’ diligent efforts, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subdivision (c)(6).  (Notice of Motion, at pp. 2-4.)  Despite service of the present Motion upon Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition to Defendants’ request for a trial continuance. 

            Following review of Defendants’ Motion and accompanying evidentiary declaration, the Court finds Defendants have sufficiently demonstrated good cause to continue the trial date in this action, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subdivision (c)(6).  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (c)(6) [“ Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: . . . (6)  A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.”].)  The Court finds, despite Defendants’ diligent efforts, Defendants are effectively prevented from completing necessary discovery prior to the date Defendants are required to file a Motion for Summary Judgment.  Defendants demonstrate, less than two (2) months ago, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on June 20, 2022.  Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint includes numerous new allegations, which were not previously included within the original Complaint.  For the purposes of investigating Plaintiff’s new allegations, Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on June 30, 2022; however, Plaintiff’s counsel effectively postponed Plaintiff’s deposition to sometime on or after August 19, 2022.  (Sealy Decl., ¶¶ 6-9.)  In conjunction with Plaintiff’s new factual allegations and Plaintiff’s inability to undergo deposition until sometime on or after August 19, 2022, Defendants face an impending procedural deadline to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on September 2, 2022.  Defendants have demonstrated that, without a trial continuance, Defendants will be unable to complete discovery prior to such a deadline, despite Defendants’ reasonable efforts.  Further, the Court recognizes Plaintiff has not filed Opposition to Defendants’ request for a trial continuance, and Defendants’ requested continuance will be the first continuance in this action.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (d)(2).)  

            The Court finds Defendants have sufficiently demonstrated good cause to continue the trail date pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subdivision (c)(6).  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (c)(6).)  The Court additionally finds good cause to continue all trial related deadlines in accordance with the new trial date.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) 

Conclusion 

            Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial and Trial Related Deadlines is GRANTED. Trial is continued to July 17, 2023, at 10 a.m.  Final Status Conference is continued to July6, 2023, at 9 a.m. 

            Defendants’ to give notice. 

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.