This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/14/2019 at 00:59:11 (UTC).

ELLEN HAAG VS LA BOSS LIMO SERVICES LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/19/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by ELLEN HAAG against LA BOSS LIMO SERVICES LLC 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:

    ****8274

  • Filing Date:

    03/19/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioner

HAAG ELLEN

Defendants and Respondents

LA BOSS LIMO SERVICES LLC

RASIER LLC

UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC.

DOES 1 THROUGH 25 INCLUSIVE

TEKEYAN ARSEN

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

4/27/2018: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

RASTER, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

4/27/2018: RASTER, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/29/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/29/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

CoverSheet

3/19/2018: CoverSheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/19/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons

3/19/2018: Summons

Complaint

3/19/2018: Complaint

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/11/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. (Defendant); Rasier LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Rasier LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. (Defendant); Rasier LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • Answer (to Complaint); Filed by Arsen Tekeyan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Arsen Tekeyan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Rasier LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • RASTER, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
2 More Docket Entries
  • 04/20/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ellen Haag (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ellen Haag (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ellen Haag (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Ellen Haag (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Ellen Haag (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC698274    Hearing Date: January 07, 2020    Dept: 4A

Motion to Continue Trial

Having considered the g papers,

BACKGROUND

On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff Ellen Haag (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants LA Boss Limo Services, LLC, Arsen Tekeyan, Uber Technologies, Inc., and Rasier, LLC alleging negligence and negligent entrustment in relation to an automobile collision that occurred on March 28, 2016.

On December 4, 2019, the Court dismissed Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC with prejudice.

On December 12, , Defendant Tekeyan filed a motion to continue trial and related dates pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332

Trial is set for March 23, 2020.

PARTYS

Defendant Tekeyan (“Moving Defendant”) asks to continue trial to June 16, 2020 and to relate all discovery deadlines to that trial date because Plaintiff has delayed in serving discovery responses on Moving Defendant.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure 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) 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

Moving Defendant .  Plaintiff served discovery responses to Moving Defendant’s first set of written discovery in September of 2019, nearly six months after the discovery requests were served on Plaintiff.  (Chang 5-8.) Ibid.)

The Court finds there is good cause to continue trial.  Necessary discovery has not been conducted.  Plaintiff’s delay in serving discovery responses delayed Moving Defendant’s successive steps in preparing for trial.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders trial shall be continued to June 16, 2020 June 2, 2020 June 16,

Moving Defendant is