This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/10/2019 at 01:21:55 (UTC).

GILDA FABIOLA GONZALEZ VS YURI GLEYZER ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/28/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by GILDA FABIOLA GONZALEZ against YURI GLEYZER 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:

    ****9868

  • Filing Date:

    03/28/2018

  • 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

Judge Details

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GONZALEZ GILDA FABIOLA

Defendants and Respondents

GLEYZER LEAH

DOES 1 TO 100

GLEYZER YURI

 

Court Documents

ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS

4/20/2018: ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS

ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS

5/17/2018: ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

5/17/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

5/30/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default

11/15/2018: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default

Opposition

12/14/2018: Opposition

Declaration

12/14/2018: Declaration

Declaration

12/28/2018: Declaration

Reply

1/4/2019: Reply

Certificate of Mailing for

1/22/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Minute Order

1/22/2019: Minute Order

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

6/6/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

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

6/6/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/19/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/19/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

3/28/2018: SUMMONS

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

3/28/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/06/2019
  • Motion to Compel (responses to request for production of documents and for an order imposing sanctions in the amount of $1,632.25); Filed by Gilda Fabiola Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Motion to Compel (responses to Form Interrogatories and for an order imposing sanctions in the amount of $1,632.25); Filed by Gilda Fabiola Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) (and Allow Defendant's Filed Answer be Deemed the Timely Filed Response to Plaintiff's Complaint) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CC...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CC...) of 01/22/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2019
  • Reply (DEFENDANTS REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND ALLOW DEFENDANTS' FILED ANSWER BE DEEMED THE TIMELY FILED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PETER M. WUCETICH); Filed by Yuri Gleyzer (Defendant); Leah Gleyzer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • Supplemental Declaration of Derek L.Tabone; Filed by Gilda Fabiola Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2018
  • Opposition (to Motion to Set Aside Default; Declaration of Derek L. Tabone; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof); Filed by Gilda Fabiola Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2018
  • Declaration (of Raul C. Contreras in Opposition to Motion to Set Aside Default); Filed by Gilda Fabiola Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2018
  • Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (and Allow Defendants' Filed Answer to be Deemed the Timely Filed Response to Plaintiff's Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Peter M. Wucetich); Filed by Yuri Gleyzer (Defendant); Leah Gleyzer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
5 More Docket Entries
  • 05/17/2018
  • ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by Gilda Fabiola Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Gilda Fabiola Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Gilda Fabiola Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Gilda Fabiola Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC699868    Hearing Date: December 11, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Continue Trial

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff Gilda Fabiola Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Yuri Gleyzer and Leah Gleyzer (“Defendants”) alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on March 29, 2016.

On October 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue trial pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

Trial is set for January 6, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Plaintiff requests that the Court continue trial for 30 days because Plaintiff’s necessary witness, Andrew Mooney, D.C., is unavailable to appear at the currently scheduled trial.

Defendants asks the Court for $2,000 in sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel for having to appear at his September 19, 2019 ex parte hearing where Plaintiff asked for the same relief requested in this motion.

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.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues there is good cause to continue trial for 30 days because Plaintiff’s primary treating physician, Andrew Mooney, D.C. will be on vacation during the trial currently scheduled to begin on January 6, 2020.  (Motion, p. 4:17-4:19; Tabone Decl., ¶ 4.)  Trial was continued once.  (Tabone Decl., 3.)  The Court finds there is good cause to continue trial since  Plaintiff’s key witness will be unavailable during the currently scheduled  trial date.

Defendants argue the motion must be denied on the ground that this action is stayed because there is an appeal before the Second District Court of Appeal.  The Court disagrees for several reasons.  

First, Defendants have not filed an appeal and, thus, are not entitled to any provision providing for an automatic stay on appeal.  Under section 916 of the Code of Civil Procedure, “the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment.  (Code of Civil Procedure section 916.)  In challenging the Court’s ruling denying relief from their waiver of jury trial, Defendants filed a petition for writ of mandate.  They have not and cannot perfect an appeal, within the meaning of section 916(a), because the challenged order is not appealable.  

Second, even if Code of Civil Procedure section 916 did apply, it would not preclude a ruling on the pending motion.  Section 916 permits this Court to proceed on matters in the action not affected by the judgment. The most basic formulation of the issue on appeal is whether Defendants have a right to a jury trial.  (Keough Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  A trial continuance will not interfere with appellate jurisdiction to rule on the question of whether Defendants can obtain relief from the jury trial waiver.  To the contrary, a continuance of trial facilitates appellate jurisdiction here by giving the Court of Appeal more time to rule on Defendants’ writ petition. 

For all these reasons, the Court finds there is good cause to continue the trial as requested by Plaintiff.   

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED as the Court does not find that Plaintiff has engaged in frivolous actions or bad faith tactics within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5.

The Court orders trial shall be continued to February 11, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.  The Court also orders the final status conference date shall be continued to January 28, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.  Both hearings are to be held in Department 4A of the Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.