Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/05/2021 at 18:28:46 (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 Other.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6767

  • Filing Date:

    03/06/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • 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

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/23/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Christopher Goff (Defendant); Hanna Goff (Defendant); Jeanine Goff (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2020
  • DocketNotice (Plaintiff's notice of withdrawing her motion to compel); Filed by Savannah Nelson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2020
  • DocketReply (Plaintiff's reply to defendant's opposition to plaintiff's motion to compel production of defendant's cellphone records); Filed by Savannah Nelson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2020
  • Docketat 11:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2020
  • Docketat 11:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
77 More Docket Entries
  • 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 SUMMONS

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

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

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

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

    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
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BUI ANSON