Case Number: BC570558 Hearing Date: May 05, 2016 Dept: 93

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT 93

MAX DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF LONG BEACH, et al.,

Defendants.
Case No.: BC570558

Hearing Date: May 5, 2016

Time: 1:30 p.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Defendants CITY OF LONG BEACH and JAMES CLEMENT POULLARD, JR.’S Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. The trial date of August 10, 2016 is CONTINUED to April 3, 2017. The Final Status Conference is CONTINUED to March 22, 2017. All discovery cut off dates are governed by the new trial date.

The Court considered the motion papers. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

This is a motor vehicular accident case. On 2/10/15, Max Diaz filed a complaint against City of Long Beach and James Clement Poullard Jr. for negligence and motor vehicular negligence. Plaintiff alleges that on 5/14/14, Poullard was driving a City of Long Beach truck eastbound on San Antonio Drive, defendant stated he made a U-turn east of Walnut Avenue directly in front of plaintiff. Poullard did not see any oncoming traffic before attempting the U-turn. Plaintiff attempted to apply his brakes but was not able to stop in time causing his vehicle to hit the City of Long Beach vehicle on the driver side front wheel. Plaintiff suffered damages.

On 1/15/16, the City of Long Beach was served. On 1/17/16, Pollard was served.

On 2/2/16, defendants filed an answer.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1332(a), “Continuances before or during trial in civil cases are disfavored. The date set for trial shall be firm. . . . Except for good cause, the motion [for continuance] shall be made on written notice to all other parties. The notice shall be given and motion made promptly on the necessity for the continuance being ascertained. A continuance before or during trial shall not be granted except on an affirmative showing of good cause under the standards recommended in section 9 of the Standards of Judicial Administration. . . .”

The general rule governing continuances set forth in section 9 is that “. . . the necessity for the continuance should have resulted from an emergency occurring after the trial setting conference that could not have been anticipated or avoided with reasonable diligence and cannot now be properly provided for other than by the granting of a continuance.” The matters which should, under normal circumstances, be considered good cause for granting a continuance are: (1) death; (2) illness supported by a doctor’s declaration; (3) unavailability of the trial attorney(s); (4) substitution of trial attorney and (5) a significant change in the status of the case. (SJA § 9 subsecs. (1) – (5).)

Other factors set forth in CRC Rule 3.1332(d) that are relevant in granting a continuance include:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;
(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay 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 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.

DISCUSSION
Defendant City of Long Beach and James Clement Poullard, Jr. request an order to continue the trial date of August 10, 2016 and all trial-related dates to April 2017 under CRC Rule 3.1332(c)(6) and (7).
Defendants contend that they require additional time to complete discovery, including taking plaintiff’s deposition, completing written discovery, obtaining records pursuant to deposition subpoenas, and taking witness depositions. Although the complaint was filed on 2/10/15, it was not served on defendants until January 2016. Defendants answered on 2/2/16. Further, defense counsel has trials in August 2016, September 2016, October 2016, January 2017, February 2017, and March 2017.
There have been no other continuances in this matter. The case has only been at issue since a couple months ago. The continuance requested is for eight months, which is 14 months after defendants’ appearance. Given counsel’s pending trial calendar, April 2017 is the earliest that counsel is available for trial. None of the parties will be prejudiced by the requested continuance.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Defendant CITY OF LONG BEACH is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: May 5, 2016

_____________________________
Howard L. Halm
Judge of the Superior Court