Pending - Other Pending
Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle
TORRENCE LAURA ANN
BAGES ANNE HELEN
DOES 1 TO 10
NAPOLIN LAW FIRM INC
NAPOLIN ALEXANDER DREW
YUN CHARLES C
7/12/2017: COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY (MOTOR VEHICLE)
5/17/2019: Stipulation and Order
1/9/2019: Notice of Change of Firm Name
12/26/2018: Minute Order
DocketStipulation and Order (Proposed order and stipulation to continue trial); Filed by Anne Helen Bages (Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by Anne Helen Bages (Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketMinute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY (MOTOR VEHICLE)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketSUMMONS[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Laura Ann Torrence (Plaintiff)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Case Number: ****9039 Hearing Date: October 31, 2019 Dept: 4A
Motion to Continue the Trial
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposition was filed.
On July 12, 2017, Plaintiff Laura Ann Torrence (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Anne Helen Bages (“Defendant”) alleging negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on September 17, 2015.
On September 27, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to continue trial and the final status conference because Defendant has subpoenaed Plaintiff’s Medi-Cal records, including billing records, but is yet to receive them.
Trial is currently set for December 16, 2019.
Defendant requests that the Court issue an order continuing trial and the final status conference because Defendant served subpoenas on Medi-Cal to ascertain Plaintiff’s billing records, but has not yet received the said records.
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.)
Defendant argues there is good cause to continue trial because Defendant has served subpoenas on Medi-Cal to obtain billing records to determine the amounts accepted by Plaintiff’s medical care providers as payment in full. (Blamires Decl., ¶ 5(a).) Defendant has not received the said documents, and does not anticipate having the records in time for pre-trial expert review and for presentation for the jury at trial. (Id.) Defendant argues that she will be prejudiced by the absence of said records, which are directly relevant to determining the amount of special damages that Plaintiff is entitled to seek at trial per Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 and Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541.
Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and has stipulated to Defendant’s request to continue the trial date. (Blamires Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. A.) The Court therefore finds that the parties will not be prejudiced by granting the requested continuance. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)(5), (9).)
The only factor weighing against the parties seeking a trial continuance is that prescribed by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)(2). The Court previously granted the parties a six-month trial continuance on May 17, 2019.
However, that Defendant’s inability to obtain Medi-Cal records are a result of matters outside of Defendant’s realm of control, the Court finds that the interests of justice are best served by a continuance. The Court also finds it is in the interest of justice to continue the discovery cut-off dates, despite Defendant not requesting this continuance.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
The Court orders trial shall be continued to June 22, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. The Court also orders the final status conference date shall be continued to June 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Both hearings are to be held in Department 4A of the Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. All discovery and motion cut-off dates are to be based on the new trial date.
Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases