On 11/14/2017 HOPE MILLER filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against INGERSOLL RAND. 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 Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
DANIEL M. CROWLEY
DOES 1 TO 50
ROWLEY NICHOLAS C. ESQ.
ROWLEY NICHOLAS CHARLES ESQ.
BUCHALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
DISAIA STEVEN D.
DISAIA STEVEN DWIGHT
4/14/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/14/2020
4/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
5/8/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY
6/11/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees
6/29/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)
9/19/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date
10/28/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES ...)
2/25/2019: Commission to Take Deposition Outside California
10/12/2018: Other - - Other - Proof of Service of Summons
10/17/2018: Answer - Answer by Defendant Austin Whiteside to Complaint for Damages
3/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
4/9/2018: ANSWER BY DEFENDANT INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
11/14/2017: SUMMONS -
11/14/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -
Hearing02/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing02/11/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY); Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:16 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketCommission to Take Deposition Outside California; Filed by Ingersoll Rand (Defendant); Austin Whiteside (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer (by Defendant Austin Whiteside to Complaint for Damages); Filed by Austin Whiteside (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOther - (Proof of Service of Summons); Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketANSWER BY DEFENDANT INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Ingersoll Rand (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC683194 Hearing Date: October 28, 2019 Dept: 4A
Motion to Continue Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
On November 14, 2017, Plaintiff Hope Miller (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Ingersoll Rand and Austin Whiteside for motor vehicle and general negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 16, 2015.
On March 26, 2019, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court ordered the trial continued from May 14, 2019 to November 12, 2019.
On September 19, 2019, Defendants Ingersoll Rand Company and Austin Whiteside (collectively “Defendants”) filed the instant motion to continue trial.
Trial is set for November 12, 2019.
Defendants request a court order continuing the trial date and all pre-trial deadlines.
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 seek to continue the trial date. Defendants argue there is good cause to continue the trial because discovery has yet to be completed. Defense counsel declares that, following the filing of this action, he was informed that Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Florence McClure Correctional Facility in Nevada. (Di Saia Decl., ¶ 2.) Defense counsel states that in response to written discovery served on Plaintiff, he was informed that Plaintiff was unable to provide certain responsive information and documents as she was unable to access them under the presented circumstances. (Id.) Defense counsel states that he contacted Plaintiff’s counsel on September 16, 2019 and confirmed that Plaintiff has now been released from the correctional facility. (Id., ¶ 3.) However, because Plaintiff remains on restricted house arrest in Nevada until February 2020, Plaintiff will continue to have limited ability to participate in discovery, to appear for deposition, or to participate in a proper defense medical examination. (Id.)
The Court finds good cause to continue the trial and other related dates.
According to defense counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel has stipulated to the requested continuance and proposed continuance date of June 2, 2020.
Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.
The Court orders trial continued from November 12, 2019 to June 2, 2020 October 29, 2019 to May 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.
Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases