JEONG J. CHA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******1874 Hearing Date: November 19, 2021 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

November 19, 2021

*******1874

Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial (Unopposed)

DECISION

A short continuance of a few months is not possible given the court’s congested trial calendar. If a continuance were to be granted, the new trial date would be in 2023.

Defendant has indicated that private mediation is scheduled for November 23, 2021.

The Final Status Conference is scheduled for December 15, 2021.

The Court continues this motion to December 15, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. The FSC is also now set for 1:30 p.m. as well.

Moving party to provide notice.

Case Number: *******1874    Hearing Date: May 4, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Jeong J. Cha (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, County of Los Angeles (the “County”), et al. for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff filed the complaint on 1/15/20.

The County asserts Plaintiff is seeking loss of wages and loss of future wages in this action, so the County served a subpoena on Plaintiff’s then and current employer, Alkapura Fullerton, Inc. (“Alkapura”), for Plaintiff’s employment records.

The County asserts Alkapura did not comply with the subpoena and now moves to compel Alkapura to comply. On 4/13/21, the County filed proof of service showing personal service of the moving papers on Alkapura.

The service of a deposition notice, pursuant to CCP ; 2025.240, is effective to require any party deponent to attend, testify, and produce materials for inspection at a deposition. (CCP ; 2025.280(a).) To require the attendance and testimony of a non-party deponent, as well as his or her production of any document or tangible thing for inspection and copying, the party seeking discovery must serve on that deponent a deposition subpoena, pursuant CCP ; 2020.010, et seq. (CCP ;; 2020.010(b), 2025.280(b); See also Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1350 [discovery from nonparties is governed by CCP ;; 2020.010, et seq., and is primarily carried out by way of subpoena].)

If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (CCP ; 2025.480(a).) If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition. (CCP ; 2025.480(i).)

In this case, the County avers the requested records are necessary to determine the nature, source, and extent of damages suffered by the Plaintiff, including his loss of wages. Additionally, the County contends Plaintiff’s prior records pertaining to the previous incident in 2014 are pertinent to assess his current claims. There has been no objection filed to the subpoena, nor has a motion to quash been filed.

The motion to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena is granted. Alkapura is ordered to produce the requested documents pursuant to the subpoenas within 20 days.

Sanctions are mandatory. (CCP ; 2025.480(j).) The County seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,110 against Alkapura. The County, however, failed to identify “every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought” in the notice of motion. (CCP ; 2023.040.) Therefore, no sanctions are imposed.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 4^th day of May, 2021

Case Number: *******1874    Hearing Date: April 16, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Jeong J. Cha (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, County of Los Angeles (the “County”), et al. for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiff filed the complaint on 1/15/20. 

The County now moves to continue the current trial date of 7/14/21 for six months. 

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:  (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the proximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Here, the County avers a continuance is necessary because additional time is needed to obtain essential testimony, documents and evidence pertinent to the issues in this case.  The County asserts the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has impeded its ability to obtain all relevant discovery.  Further, the County provides additional time is needed for the parties to participate in an agreed upon mediation.  The motion is unopposed, and Defendant establishes good cause for the continuance. 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The 7/14/21 trial date is continued to 1/14/22 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The 6/30/20 FSC is set for 1/3/22 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cut-off dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 16^th day of April, 2021