This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/20/2022 at 18:01:43 (UTC).

JESUS MARTINEZ PARRA VS GARY CRUZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/31/2017 JESUS MARTINEZ PARRA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against GARY CRUZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JON R. TAKASUGI, THOMAS D. LONG, HOLLY E. KENDIG and AUDRA MORI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4558

  • Filing Date:

    08/31/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JON R. TAKASUGI

THOMAS D. LONG

HOLLY E. KENDIG

AUDRA MORI

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

PARRA JESUS MARTINEZ

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 25

CRUZ GARY

CRUZ GEORGINA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

MATHIS THANE R.

YE JOHN R.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

RAFFALOW BRETOI & ADAMS

VICTOR LEON ARDEN

LIEBHABER JACK MITCHELL

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

12/14/2021: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Change of Firm Name

6/10/2021: Notice of Change of Firm Name

Motion to Continue Trial Date

11/12/2021: Motion to Continue Trial Date

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION

11/30/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE

12/1/2021: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

12/13/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE

2/4/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE

Order - ORDER PROPOSED RE: EX PARTE APPLICATON TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

2/4/2020: Order - ORDER PROPOSED RE: EX PARTE APPLICATON TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (1-HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL ...)

2/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (1-HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL ...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL)

4/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL) OF 04/17/2020

4/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL) OF 04/17/2020

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

4/22/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

9/1/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF WAS REFERRED TO DOCTORS OR CHIROPRACTORS BY AN ATTORNEY

5/24/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF WAS REFERRED TO DOCTORS OR CHIROPRACTORS BY AN ATTORNEY

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF'S IMMIGRATION CITIZENSHIP STATUS ORIGIN

5/24/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF'S IMMIGRATION CITIZENSHIP STATUS ORIGIN

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY

5/24/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXLUDE EVIDENCE REGARDING AMOUNT MEDICAL PROVIDERS ON LIEN MIGHT ACCEPT

5/24/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXLUDE EVIDENCE REGARDING AMOUNT MEDICAL PROVIDERS ON LIEN MIGHT ACCEPT

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ALL TESTIMONY RELATING TO PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO MITIGATE HIS DAMAGES FOR NOT HAVING INSURANCE

5/24/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ALL TESTIMONY RELATING TO PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO MITIGATE HIS DAMAGES FOR NOT HAVING INSURANCE

23 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/23/2022
  • Hearing02/23/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2022
  • Hearing02/09/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Audra Mori, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Jesus Martinez Parra (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31, Audra Mori, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 31, Audra Mori, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial - Held - Advanced and Heard

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • DocketReply (plaintiff's reply in support of motion for trial continuance); Filed by Jesus Martinez Parra (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2021
  • DocketOpposition (to Motion for Continuance of Trial); Filed by Gary Cruz (Defendant); Georgina Cruz (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2021
  • DocketMotion to Continue Trial Date; Filed by Jesus Martinez Parra (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
42 More Docket Entries
  • 10/19/2017
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • DocketANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jesus Martinez Parra (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jesus Martinez Parra (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jesus Martinez Parra (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC674558 Hearing Date: December 13, 2021 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JESUS MARTINEZ PARRA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

GARY CRUZ, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC674558

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

December 13, 2021

Plaintiff Jesus Martinez Parra (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Gary Cruz and Georgina Cruz (“Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff filed the complaint on August 31, 2017. Trial is currently set for December 28, 2021.

Plaintiff now moves to continue the current trial date March 21, 2022. Defendants oppose the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.

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, Plaintiff contends a continuance is necessary because Plaintiff’s counsel is excusably unavailable on December 28, 2021, because Plaintiff’s counsel has a conflict with another case, Soberanis Solorzano v. Koutures, BC705877, which is set to commence trial on December 27, 2021. Plaintiff states Plaintiff’s counsel sought to continue the trial in the Soberanis Solorzano matter, but the plaintiff in that action was not agreeable to having the trial continued to the available trial date of September 2022. Plaintiff further provides defense counsel is aware of the conflict, and that Plaintiff is unaware of any prejudice to Defendants.

In opposition, Defendants argue the motion should be denied because trial in this matter has already been continued four times, and that Plaintiff fails to establish good cause for the continuance. Defendants contend Plaintiff’s counsel does not indicate whether Plaintiff’s counsel will be the trial attorney in this matter, nor any explanation for why multiple trials were scheduled together.

In reply, Plaintiff argues Plaintiff’s counsel is excusably unavailable, and that Plaintiff’s counsel will be lead or sole counsel in the two actions. Plaintiff provides there was no conflict until the Soberanis Solorzano matter was set for trial after the trial date in this matter was scheduled.

Plaintiff’s evidence shows this matter was set for trial on September 1, 2020, with trial being set for December 28, 2021. (Reply Exh. A.) At a Case Management Conference on November 20, 2020, the trial in Soberanis Solorzano was set for December 27, 2021. (Ibid. Exh. B.) Consequently, the evidence shows Plaintiff’s counsel was aware of the conflict between the cases for almost one year before filing the instant motion to continue trial in this matter, waiting until the last minute. Moreover, as Defendants contend in opposition, this case is now more than four years old, and trial in this action has already been continued four times. This case was filed the year before the Solorzano case. Additionally, while Plaintiff’s counsel provides counsel plans to be lead trial counsel in the two actions, Plaintiff’s counsel does not offer any explanation as to whether or why other counsel cannot substitute for trial counsel during the period of conflict.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

Dated this 13th day of December, 2021

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

'