This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/14/2019 at 00:27:52 (UTC).

HOPE MILLER VS INGERSOLL RAND ET AL

Case Summary

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 Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3194

  • Filing Date:

    11/14/2017

  • 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

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MILLER HOPE

Defendants and Respondents

WHITESIDE AUSTIN

INGERSOLL RAND

DOES 1 TO 50

RAND INGERSOLL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

ROWLEY NICHOLAS C. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BUCHALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

DISAIA STEVEN D.

DISAIA STEVEN DWIGHT

 

Court Documents

Motion to Continue Trial Date

9/19/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES ...)

10/28/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES ...)

Commission to Take Deposition Outside California

2/25/2019: Commission to Take Deposition Outside California

Other - - Other - Proof of Service of Summons

10/12/2018: Other - - Other - Proof of Service of Summons

Answer - Answer by Defendant Austin Whiteside to Complaint for Damages

10/17/2018: Answer - Answer by Defendant Austin Whiteside to Complaint for Damages

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

3/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

ANSWER BY DEFENDANT INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

4/9/2018: ANSWER BY DEFENDANT INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

SUMMONS -

11/14/2017: SUMMONS -

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

11/14/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/16/2020
  • Hearing11/16/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2020
  • Hearing06/02/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2020
  • Hearing05/19/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial (and Pre-Trial Deadlines by Defendants) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Defendants' Motion to Continue Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketMotion to Continue Trial Date; Filed by Ingersoll Rand (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
2 More Docket Entries
  • 02/25/2019
  • DocketCommission to Take Deposition Outside California; Filed by Ingersoll Rand (Defendant); Austin Whiteside (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • DocketAnswer (by Defendant Austin Whiteside to Complaint for Damages); Filed by Austin Whiteside (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2018
  • DocketOther - (Proof of Service of Summons); Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Ingersoll Rand (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2018
  • DocketANSWER BY DEFENDANT INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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.

BACKGROUND

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.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request a court order continuing the trial date and all pre-trial deadlines.

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.

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

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.