On 08/09/2017 ROJEN RATI filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against SA RECYCLING LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DOES 1 TO 25
SA RECYCLING LLC
LAW OFFICES OF GARRY S. MALIN APC
HITZKE DANIEL L. ESQ.
LEDGER BRIAN MARK
10/5/2018: Substitution of Attorney
12/5/2018: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)
9/18/2017: DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
8/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
8/9/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DM4AGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by SA Recycling, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by SA Recycling, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by SA Recycling, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Rojen Rati (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Rojen Rati (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DM4AGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIESRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC671518 Hearing Date: January 17, 2020 Dept: 27
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
On August 9, 2017, plaintiff Rojen Rati filed this action against defendant SA Recycling, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges he was on SA Recycling’s premises when he was struck by Enrique Solorio, who was driving SA Recycling’s truck in the scope and course of his employment with SA Recycling. Defendant moves for an order continuing trial for four months. The motion is unopposed.
A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(b).) The request for continuance may be granted on an affirmative showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332.)
This case was filed on August 9, 2017. Trial was originally set for February 11, 2019. On December 5, 2018, the parties stipulated to continue the trial to August 12, 2019, which continuance the Court granted.
Trial is currently scheduled for February 13, 2020 and the proposed continuance would set the trial in June 2020. On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff requested a continuance of the trial to February 10, 2019 because Plaintiff had not yet taken the depositions of Defendant’s employees. The Court granted that continuance, and set the new trial date for February 13, 2020. On December 20, 2019, Defendant filed an ex parte application seeking another continuance of the trial date to August 10, 2020, arguing that they had not been able to take the depositions of two employees of Defendant and they needed additional time to mediate. On December 20, the Court denied the ex parte application, stating Defendant had not shown good cause that the depositions could not have been taken earlier and that the parties still had sufficient time before the February 13, 2020 trial date to mediate the case.
In its current motion, Defendant again argues a continuance is necessary because the parties wish to mediate and because Plaintiff agrees to the continuance. The parties do not appear to have scheduled a mediation date, and Defendant does not explain why. The parties have not shown diligence in seeking to mediate and scheduling a date, and Defendant does not show good cause for not mediating earlier.
Defendant also argues it has been trying to depose its former employees Enrique Solorio and Paulo Contreras since July 2019. In September 2019, defense counsel spoke with Solorio, who said he had recently had a stroke that affected his speech and was still unwell. Since September, defense counsel has not been able to get in touch with Solorio. Defendant does not state the results of the efforts to contact Contreras. Defendant argues a continuance is necessary due to Solorio’s condition.
This is the same argument Defendant made in the December 20, 2019 ex parte application. Defendant submits no evidence that Solorio was not capable of sitting for a deposition between September and now. Defendant submits no evidence of Solorio’s current health and does not explain why Solorio cannot be deposed between now and trial. Nor does Defendant explain why Contreras’s deposition has not gone forward. If Defendant contends it still cannot locate Contreras, Defendant does not explain what difference a continuance will make in that regard. Indeed, emails attached to the June 3, 2019 ex parte application for a continuance show the parties were discussing locating Solorio and Contreras as early as May 23, 2019.
This case will be two and a half years old by the February 13, 2020 trial date. The parties have not shown good cause for a further continuance. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.