On 03/15/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by PACIFIC CLINICS against RENT-A-CENTER INC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DOES 1 TO 50
RAC NATIONAL PRODUCT SERVICE LLC
3/15/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by RAC National Product Service, LLC [Doe 1] (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Request for Dismissal; Filed by Pacific Clinics (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Answer (RAC National Product Services, LLC"s Answer to Unverified Complaint); Filed by RAC National Product Service, LLC [Doe 1] (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Pacific Clinics (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Rent-A-Center, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAILRead MoreRead Less
DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by Rent-A-Center, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Rent-A-Center, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Pacific Clinics (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Pacific Clinics (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC698134 Hearing Date: February 20, 2020 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
RENT-A-CENTER, INC., et al.,
Case No.: BC698134
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE
February 20, 2020
On December 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint, substituting in RAC National Product Service, LLC for Doe 1.
On May 1, 2019, dismissal was entered as to Defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc.
On June 12, 2019, pursuant to a stipulation and order, the trial was continued from September 16, 2019 to December 16, 2019. On September 19, 2019, pursuant to a second stipulation and order, the trial was continued from December 16, 2019 to March 19, 2020.
The parties now jointly seek a continuance of the March 19, 2020 trial date to October 15, 2020, or a date thereafter convenient for the court.
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.)
The parties argue there is good cause to continue the trial date because Defendant RAC recently substituted in new counsel and the continuance would allow RAC’s new counsel time to fully evaluate the case for trial or potential settlement. The parties further argue that Plaintiff is seeking reimbursement under Labor Code section 3852 for workers’ compensation benefits paid on behalf of its employee and that the requested continuance will provide additional time for the final determination of Plaintiff’s employee’s underlying workers’ compensation claim.
The Court finds there is good cause to continue the trial date to allow time for RAC’s new counsel to evaluate this action and for final determination of Plaintiff’s employee’s underlying workers’ compensation claim. Additionally, despite a lack of request for such, the Court finds that it is in the interest of justice to continue all trial-related dates.
Accordingly, the Joint Motion to Continue the Trial Date is GRANTED. The Court orders trial continued from March 19, 2020 to October 15, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 31. The Final Status Conference is continued from March 5, 2020 to September 30, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 31. Discovery cut-off (including expert witness exchange) and motion cut-off dates shall be based on the new trial date.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at email@example.com 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.