This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/20/2020 at 23:14:39 (UTC).

SAVANNAH NELSON VS HANNA GOFF ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/06/2018 SAVANNAH NELSON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against HANNA GOFF. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DENNIS J. LANDIN, CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6767

  • Filing Date:

    03/06/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DENNIS J. LANDIN

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

NELSON SAVANNAH

Defendants and Respondents

GOFF HANNA

GOFF CHRISTOPHER

DOES 1 TO 10

GOFF JEANINE

GOFF JOSEPH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SARIOL LEGAL

JERISAT MARTIN ELIAS

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BUI ANSON

MICHAEL MACGUIRE & ASSOCIATES

WOOD PAUL KEVIN

BUI ANSON M.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE)

3/11/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/17/2020

3/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/17/2020

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPP TO DEFENDANT;S MTN TO CONTINUE TRIAL

11/21/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPP TO DEFENDANT;S MTN TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

11/19/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

10/25/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

10/11/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION PLAINTIFF'S EXPARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

8/5/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION PLAINTIFF'S EXPARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S FRIVOLOUS MOTION TO COMPEL

5/13/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S FRIVOLOUS MOTION TO COMPEL

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

5/16/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing, Opposition and Reply Dates

2/15/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing, Opposition and Reply Dates

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Request for Prod...)

2/15/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Request for Prod...)

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

1/28/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

6/26/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

ORDER RE:MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS IMPROPERLY PLED

8/13/2018: ORDER RE:MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS IMPROPERLY PLED

Minute Order -

8/13/2018: Minute Order -

SUMMONS -

3/6/2018: SUMMONS -

32 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/08/2021
  • Hearing03/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • Hearing10/23/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • Hearing08/25/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2020
  • Hearing08/13/2020 at 11:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2020
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2020
  • Docketat 10:56 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Minute Order (Court Order)]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
64 More Docket Entries
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Savannah Nelson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Savannah Nelson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Savannah Nelson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • DocketMotion to Strike; Filed by Christopher Goff (Defendant); Hanna Goff (Defendant); Jeanine Goff (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • DocketNPOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS IMPROPERLY-PLEADE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Savannah Nelson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696767    Hearing Date: December 06, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff Savannah Nelson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Hanna Goff, Jeanine Goff, and Christopher Goff alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on March 10, 2016.

On June 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amendment to her complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Joseph Goff.

On November 5, 2019, Defendants Hanna Goff, Jeanine Goff, Christopher Goff, and Joseph Goff (“Defendants”) filed a motion to continue trial pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

Trial is set for January 15, 2020.

PARTIES REQUEST

Defendants ask the Court to continue trial and related dates to June 17, 2020 because Defendant Hanna Goff intends to graduate from Washington State University on May 8, 2020 and the current trial date interferes with her academic calendar.

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

Defendants argue that there is good cause to continue trial because the currently set trial will interfere with Defendant Hanna Goff’s attendance of her college classes and, thus, hinder her ability to graduate on May 9, 2020.  (Motion, p. 5:1-5:3; Wood Decl., ¶ 3.)  Defendants argue the discovery cut-off dates should also be continued so Defendants may obtain and review medical records and billing records related to Plaintiff’s lower back surgery.  (Motion, p. 5:12-5:15.)

The Court finds there is good cause to grant the continuance.  Defendant Hanna Goff should not have to miss class in order to attend her trial if such absence is avoidable.  Plaintiff states she will be prejudiced if the continuance is granted because she will have to serve new subpoenas for parties to appear at trial and may possibly incur fees in doing so.  This does not amount to prejudice because Plaintiff will still be able to prosecute this action to her fullest capabilities.

Plaintiff also argues that the discovery cut-off dates should not be continued because Defendants have obtained all medical records and has plenty of time to depose Plaintiff’s orthopedic expert.  (Jerisat Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)  The Court disagrees.  Trial is just over a month away.  Discovery cut-off dates are quickly approaching.  There is no evidence that Plaintiff’s orthopedic expert’s deposition has been noticed.  Additionally, there is no evidence that Plaintiff will be prejudiced in continuing the discovery cut-off dates, at least for the purpose of allowing completion of discovery and deposition with respect to Plaintiff’s orthopedic expert.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders trial shall be continued to June 17, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.  The Court also orders the final status conference date shall be continued to June 3, 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.  Discovery cut-off dates are continued to relate to the June 17, 2020 trial date, but only to allow Defendants the opportunity to secure medical records and billing records related to Plaintiff’s lower back surgery and to depose Plaintiff’s orthopedic expert.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.