This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/03/2019 at 02:09:11 (UTC).

ANISA HAMDAN VS WALTER DE LA TORRE ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/03/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by ANISA HAMDAN against WALTER DE LA TORRE in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8926

  • Filing Date:

    01/03/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

HAMDAN ANISA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 25

LOPEZ WALTER DANILO

TORRE WALTER DANILO DE LA

TORRE WALTER DE LA

 

Court Documents

Answer

12/24/2018: Answer

Demand for Jury Trial

12/24/2018: Demand for Jury Trial

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

3/28/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

3/28/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

3/28/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

3/28/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Stipulation and Order

5/17/2019: Stipulation and Order

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

5/17/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

4/26/2018: DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

SUMMONS

1/3/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. PREMISES LIABILITY

1/3/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. PREMISES LIABILITY

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/19/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (To Continue Trial); Filed by Anisa Hamdan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Walter De La Torre (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories; Filed by Walter De La Torre (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories; Filed by Walter De La Torre (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Statement of Damages; Filed by Walter De La Torre Lopez erroneously sued and served as Walter De La Torre, Walter Danilo De La Toree, Walter Danilo Lopez (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents; Filed by Walter De La Torre Lopez erroneously sued and served as Walter De La Torre, Walter Danilo De La Toree, Walter Danilo Lopez (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Walter Danilo De La Torre (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Walter De La Torre (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by Anisa Hamdan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. PREMISES LIABILITY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Anisa Hamdan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC688926    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for an Order Continuing Trial and Related Dates

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 12, 2017, Plaintiff Willie C. Bocatija (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Fadee Helou and Limited One Enterprises, Inc. for premises liability arising out of a slip and fall incident that occurred on September 30, 2015.

On February 5, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application to continue trial and all related dates.  The trial was continued from February 26, 2019 to August 29, 2019.  All discovery and motion cut-ff dates were to be based on the new trial date.

On August 29, 2019, pursuant to the parties’ joint stipulation, the Court ordered the trial continued from September 12, 2019 to December 6, 2019.

On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to continue trial.

Trial is set for December 6, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests that the Court issues an order continuing the trial date and all other related dates.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.  All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.”  Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations.  The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings.  In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to continue the trial date.  Plaintiff argues there is good cause to continue the trial because the deposition of Plaintiff and Defendants have not been taken and expert designations have not been served. According to Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff’s deposition was scheduled for October 1, 2019 and a mediation is scheduled for November 1, 2019.  (Marrache Decl., ¶ 4-5.)  Plaintiff’s counsel is also engaged in trials and master and individual immigration hearings of approximately ten matters out of the Los Angeles Immigration Court from September to December 2019.  (Id., ¶¶ 7-9.) Id., ¶ 3, Ex. A.)

The Court finds good cause to continue the trial and other related dates.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders trial continued from December 6, 2019 to April 2, 2020 22, 2019 to March 19, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 4A.  Discovery cut-off (including expert witness exchange) and motion cut-off dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.