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.
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
WILLIS PAULA DEGROAT
BLUE VAN SUPERSHUTTLE
DOES 1 TO 20
SANTO JAMES MICHELI
SUPERSHUTTLE BLUE VAN
FALK RICHARD M. LAW OFFICES OF
FALK RICHARD MICHAEL
STEPHAN PAUL EDMOND
8/2/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
8/2/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2/5/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
Notice (Of Continued Informal Discovery Conference); Filed by James Micheli Santo (Defendant); Ean Holdings (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by PartyRead MoreRead Less
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by James Micheli Santo (Defendant); Ean Holdings (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by James Micheli Santo (Defendant); Ean Holdings (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Paula Degroat Willis (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.