On 02/05/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by HAMED JAFARI against NICHOLAS HERMAN in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DOES 1 TO 25
1/10/2019: Substitution of Attorney
6/24/2019: Stipulation and Order
3/20/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT
3/20/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NICHOLAS HERMAN; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Stipulation and Order (Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial); Filed by Hamed Jafari (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (Change of Email Address); Filed by Nicholas Herman (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Hamed Jafari (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by Nicholas Herman (Defendant); Rena Herman (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Nicholas Herman (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NICHOLAS HERMAN; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURYRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Hamed Jafari (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC693161 Hearing Date: February 04, 2020 Dept: 28
Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff Hamed Jafari (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Nicholas Herman and Rena Herman (“Defendants”). The complaint alleges negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on October 7, 2016.
On January 6, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to continue trial pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.
On January 27, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Defendants’ motion to February 4, 2020.
Trial is set for February 18, 2020.
Defendant asks the Court to continue trial to July 6, 2020 and to relate the final status conference and all discovery cut of dates to relate to the July 6, 2020 trial date.
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.)
Defendants argue there is good cause to continue trial so Defendants may secure the availability for their experts. (Motion, p. 4:9-4:10.) Trial was continued once. (Skinner Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) However, Defendants experts Lloyd V. Martin and Jennifer L. Polhemus stated they would not be able to attend trial. (Skinner Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) The parties have stipulated to the continuance. (Skinner Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. D.)
The Court finds there is good cause to continue trial. However, there is no argument made showing there is good cause to reopen discovery. As such, discovery shall remain closed.
The motion is GRANTED.
The Court orders trial shall be continued to July 6 2020 at 8:30 a.m. The Court also orders the final status conference date shall be continued to June 22, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Both hearings are to be held in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. All discovery cut-off dates shall remain related to February 18, 2020.
Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.