This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/20/2020 at 20:55:11 (UTC).

DAJANA MICIC VS MICHAEL SCHLAV ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/08/2017 DAJANA MICIC filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MICHAEL SCHLAV. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6322

  • Filing Date:

    12/08/2017

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MICIC DAJANA

Defendants and Respondents

MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC

UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC.

SMILOVICS ANDRAS

SCHLAV MICHAEL

DOES 1 TO 100

UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. (DOE 1)

UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HALPERN JESSE L. ESQ.

HALPERN JESSE LEWIS

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

TYSON & MENDES LLP

ROGERS MATTHEW R.

GOLUB BETH ISAACS

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

7/1/2020: Request for Dismissal

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ORDER CONTINUING DISCOVERY HEARINGS, VACATING TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, AND SETTING TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

4/24/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ORDER CONTINUING DISCOVERY HEARINGS, VACATING TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, AND SETTING TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING DEFENDANT UBER'S MOTIONS)

3/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING DEFENDANT UBER'S MOTIONS)

Notice of Ruling

3/17/2020: Notice of Ruling

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JUSTINA L. TATE

1/30/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JUSTINA L. TATE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO C...)

1/31/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO C...)

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER

1/9/2020: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

1/10/2020: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES

1/10/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING IN SUPPORT

1/10/2020: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING IN SUPPORT

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES

10/11/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES

Notice of Ruling

10/18/2019: Notice of Ruling

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

3/27/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Answer

1/4/2019: Answer

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

1/7/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Personal Service

12/6/2018: Proof of Personal Service

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

12/8/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

43 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Plaintiff Dajana Micic's Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Three) and Request for Monetary Sanctions) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Plaintiff Dajana Micic's Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Request for Sanctions) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) and Request for Sanctions) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Dajana Micic (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) and Request for Sanctions) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Plaintiff Dajana Micic's Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Three) and Request for Monetary Sanctions) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
75 More Docket Entries
  • 08/15/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Dajana Micic (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Dajana Micic (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Dajana Micic (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Dajana Micic (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC686322    Hearing Date: February 27, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Continue Trial

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Dajana Micic (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Michael Schlav, Andras Smilovics, Uber Technologies, Inc., and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Defendants”) on December 8, 2017. This action arises from allegations of motor vehicle negligence relating to a March 13, 2017, automobile collision between Plaintiff and Defendant Michael Schlav, and allegations against Defendant Mercedes-Benz, USA relating to a defective airbag in Plaintiff’s vehicle. 

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant requests a continuance of the April 13, 2020, trial date to July 24, 2020.

LEGAL STANDARD

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

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves for a continuance of the April 13, 2020, trial date to July 24, 2020, on the grounds that the parties to this action have stipulated to a continuance, that Plaintiff’s ongoing medical treatment requires additional discovery, that various discovery motion hearings have now been continued to March 25, 2020, and that two individual Defendants in this action have yet to be served. 

Trial in this matter was first scheduled for June 10, 2019, but was continued to December 9, 2019, by this Court upon stipulation of the parties. (Tate Decl. ¶ 4.) Thereafter, the trial date was again continued to April 13, 2020. (Id.)

Defense counsel declares that on she contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, and obtained consent to submit a Joint Stipulation in Support of Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and All Related Litigation Dates. (Id. ¶ 14.) The Court denied the ex parte relief, finding that “no good cause to bring this matter before the Court by ex parte application rather than a noticed motion.” (01/31/2020 Minute Order.) 

Defendant now argues that good cause exist to continue this motion because Defendant has been able to conduct discovery because Plaintiff delayed in providing discovery responses to Defendant. In light of the proximity between the hearings on Defendant’s motions to compel initial discovery responses, March 25, 2020, and the current April 13, 2020, trial date, the argument is well-taken. Additionally, the parties have stipulated to the continuance of trial; there is no showing that a continuance would prejudice a party to this action. 

In light of the parties’ stipulation to the continuance, the need for discovery pertaining to Plaintiff’s injuries, and the lack of prejudice to the parties to this action, Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Continue the April 13, 2020, trial date to July 24, 2020, is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.