This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/02/2019 at 00:18:08 (UTC).

MARIE CLAIRE ESCOBAR FRIAS VS JAY WYATT

Case Summary

On 05/15/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by MARIE CLAIRE ESCOBAR FRIAS against JAY WYATT in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6157

  • Filing Date:

    05/15/2018

  • 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

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

FRIAS MARIE CLAIRE ESCOBAR

Respondents and Defendants

WYATT JAY

DOES 1 TO 50

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/5/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

AFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE

6/5/2018: AFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE

CIVIL DEPOSIT

6/21/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

6/21/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE [CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.300]

8/31/2018: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE [CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.300]

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE [CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.300]

8/31/2018: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE [CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.300]

Certificate of Mailing for

11/9/2018: Certificate of Mailing for

Minute Order

11/9/2018: Minute Order

Notice

11/16/2018: Notice

SUMMONS

5/15/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE

5/15/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/16/2018
  • Notice (That Cases Have Been Deemed Related); Filed by Jay Wyatt (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2018
  • at 10:02 AM in Department 4; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2018
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order Re Notice of Related Cases (BC706157 and BC706840)) of 11/09/2018); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2018
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order Re Notice of Related Cases (BC706157 and BC706840))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2018
  • NOTICE OF RELATED CASE [CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.300]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2018
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by Jay Wyatt (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2018
  • Notice of Related Case (BC706840); Filed by Jay Wyatt (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2018
  • NOTICE OF RELATED CASE [CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.300]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by Jay Wyatt (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Jay Wyatt (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • Affidavit ; Filed by Marie Claire Escobar Frias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Marie Claire Escobar Frias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • AFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Marie Claire Escobar Frias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC706157    Hearing Date: March 12, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Continue Trial and Trial-Based Deadlines

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff Marie Claire Escobar Frias (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Jay Wyatt (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50, alleging negligence and negligence per se arising out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on July 20, 2016.

On November 9, 2018, the Court found that the present action of Frias v. Wyatt, Case No. BC706157, and Karki v. Wyatt, Case No. BC706840, were related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Both actions arise out of the same automobile accident that occurred on July 20, 2016. BC706157 was held to be the lead case

On September 27, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Consolidate Case No. BC706157 and Case No. BC706840 for trial purposes only.  On October 25, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate.  

On February 10, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to continue trial and trial-based deadlines.  The motion is unopposed. 

Trial is set for May 11, 2020.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

Defendant asks the Court to continue trial to May 27, 2020, or if the date is not feasible, then to August 3, 2020 or thereafter, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.  Defendant’s request arises out of his impending unavailability due to employment-related travelThe motion to reopen discovery and continue all trial based dates with the new trial date is made on the same factual grounds, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050.

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.”  Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) the addition of a new party if (A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or (B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case; (6) a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that there is good cause to continue trial and the related dates because, while Defendant acknowledges that the parties have been diligently preparing for trial, he was notified in late January 2020 that he is required to travel to Capetown, South Africa from May 14, 2020 to May 25, 2020 for his employment(Wyatt Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)  Defendant argues that his presence is necessary to a proper defense, and that based on the trial date of May 11, 2020, there is no way trial can be completed before his scheduled departure on May 14, 2020 (Kaufman Decl., ¶ 5.)  As such, Defendant moves to briefly continue the trial to May 27, 2020, based on the unavailability of a party due to excusable circumstances under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(2).

Defendant asserts that all parties have stipulated to the continuance to May 27, 2020, or if that is not feasible, to August 3, 2020, or thereafter. (Kaufman Decl., ¶ 6; Exh. A.)

Furthermore, Defendant argues that there is no alternative means to have Defendant present for his defense at trial.  Defendant contends that Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice on the merits, and that Plaintiff stipulates to the short continuance.  Defendant argues that there is no reason the parties or a trial court will not be available for the case for an additional week, and the interests of justice are best served by a continuance so that all parties may proceed to trial on the merits, which prevail over any efficiency concerns about prompt case disposition or firm trial dates. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(8), (10)-(11); Oliveros, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1400 [“Efficiency cannot be favored over justice”].)

The Court finds there is good cause to continue trialDefendant has provided excusable circumstances, and continuing the trial date by 16 days is unlikely to cause prejudice to Plaintiff as all parties have stipulated to the continuation.  The motion is, thus, properly granted.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders trial shall be continued to May 27, 2020All discovery cut-off dates shall relate to the May 27, 2020 trial date.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC706157    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: 4A

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposition was filed.

Background

In BC706157, on May 15, 2018, Plaintiff Marie Claire Escobar Frias filed a complaint against Jay Wyatt for negligence. Trial is set for May 11, 2020.

In BC706840, on May 21, 2018, Plaintiff Sanjay Karki filed a complaint against Ernest Jay Wyatt for negligence. Trial is set for May 11, 2020.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedures section 1048 provides: “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a)(1), a notice of motion to consolidate must: (A) list all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record; (B) contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and (C) be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. Under subsection (2), the motion to consolidate: (A) is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case; (B) must be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and (C) must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.

Discussion

Defendant Jay Wyatt requests that the court consolidate this case with BC706840 Karki v. Wyatt for trial purposes only.

Both actions arise out of the same automobile accident that occurred on July 20, 2016. The difference between the two actions is the person claiming injury. Plaintiff Frias was a passenger in an UBER vehicle at the time of the collision, and Plaintiff Karki was the driver of that UBER vehicle. (Kaufman Decl. ¶ 4.)

These matters were deemed related on November 9, 2018.

The Court finds that the cases involve common questions of law and fact because they arise out of the same incident and name the same defendant.

The motion to consolidate is GRANTED.

The Court orders that cases BC706157 and BC706840 are consolidated for trial purposes only. BC706157 is designated the lead case. CRC 3.350(b).

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.