This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/27/2019 at 07:03:55 (UTC).

PAULA DEGROAT WILLIS VS JAMES MICHELI SANTO ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/05/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by PAULA DEGROAT WILLIS against JAMES MICHELI SANTO 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:

    ****2502

  • Filing Date:

    02/05/2018

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

WILLIS PAULA DEGROAT

Defendants and Respondents

EAN HOLDINGS

BLUE VAN SUPERSHUTTLE

DOES 1 TO 20

BAGGA MUNISH

SANTO JAMES MICHELI

HOLDINGS EAN

SUPERSHUTTLE BLUE VAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

FALK RICHARD M. LAW OFFICES OF

FALK RICHARD MICHAEL

Defendant Attorney

STEPHAN PAUL EDMOND

 

Court Documents

Notice

6/19/2019: Notice

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/2/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8/2/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

SUMMONS

2/5/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

2/5/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/19/2019
  • Notice (Of Continued Informal Discovery Conference); Filed by James Micheli Santo (Defendant); Ean Holdings (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • Answer; Filed by James Micheli Santo (Defendant); Ean Holdings (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by James Micheli Santo (Defendant); Ean Holdings (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Paula Degroat Willis (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC692502    Hearing Date: November 25, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates

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

BACKGROUND

On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff Paula Degroat-Willis (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants James Micheli Santo, EAN Holdings, Munish Bagga, and Blue Van Supershuttle alleging motor vehicle negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on February 15, 2016.

On October 22, 2019, Defendant James Micheli Santo filed a motion to continue trial and related dates pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

Trial is set for February 20, 2020.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant James Micheli Santo (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court to continue the trial to April 20, 2020, the final status conference to April 3, 2020, and all discovery cut-off and other pre-trial dates to relate to the April 20, 2020 trial date.

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.”  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.)

DISCUSSION

Moving Defendant argues there is good cause to continue trial and the related dates because Plaintiff has failed to comply with her discovery obligations despite Moving Defendant’s persistent attempts to obtain discovery responses.  (Motion, p. 5:7-5:21.)  More specifically, Plaintiff delayed providing further responses to Request for Production (Set One) from at least July 19, 2019 to November 7, 2019.  (Tran Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.)  Moving Defendant requires more time to determine if he needs to subpoena additional records.  (Tran Decl., ¶ 11.)  Moving Defendant also needs to depose Plaintiff and potential fact and expert witnesses.  (Ibid.In addition, Moving Defendant intends to conduct a defense medical evaluation of Plaintiff.  (Ibid.)  There has been one continuance in this matter.  (Tran Decl., ¶ 5.)

The Court finds there is good cause to grant the continuance.  Plaintiff’s delay in providing discovery responses to Moving Defendant has delayed Moving Defendant’s discovery plan.  This has caused Moving Defendant to believe he cannot adequately prepare for trial.

The motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders trial shall be continued to April 20, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.  The Court also orders the final status conference date shall be continued to April 6, 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. April 20, 2020 trial date.

Moving Defendant is to give notice of the Court’s ruling.