SONNIA ABA AHINASI VS KLLM TRANSPORT SERVICES LLC ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****5227    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Sonnia Aba Ahinasi filed this action against Defendants, KLLM Transport Services, LLC, FFE Transportation Services, Inc., and John Hugh Stratton, Jr. for damages arising out of an automobile accident.  Plaintiff filed her complaint on 9/08/17, and the case was originally set for trial on 3/08/19. 

Defendants filed a joint answer to the complaint on 1/09/18.  On 12/21/18, the parties submitted a stipulation to continue the trial date to 9/05/19, and the Court issued an order in accordance with the stipulation.  On 6/03/19, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed ex parte application to continue the trial from 9/05/19 to 3/23/20.

At this time, Plaintiff moves to continue the trial date from 3/23/20 to 9/21/20.  Plaintiff contends the continuance is necessary because (a) despite diligence, the parties have not completed discovery, (b) the parties wish to participate in mediation, which is scheduled for February of 2020, and (c) Plaintiff’s attorney is scheduled to participate in another trial in March of 2020.

The Court is hesitant to grant the motion in light of the two prior extended continuances of the trial date, and also in light of the lengthy duration of the requested continuance.  There is plenty of time between now and March of 2020 to conduct discovery.  If the parties’ chosen mediator isn’t available until February of 2020, it seems likely the parties could choose another mediator with availability in the near future.  As for Plaintiff’s attorney being in two trials in March of 2020, this is still five months away, and it is entirely possible one or both trials won’t go forward.  Additionally, Plaintiff did not articulate whether the other case has previously had the trial date continued, or whether a continuance of the trial date in the other case would be possible.

The motion to continue the trial date is denied at this time.  The Court asks the parties to work diligently to complete discovery and participate in mediation.  This ruling is without prejudice to the parties’ right to renew the request for relief as the trial date grows nearer.  The Court does, however, advise the parties that it will require a showing of good cause to continue the trial date again in this case.  The case has been pending for over two years, and has been at issue for almost two years.  This is not a complicated case, and the Court expects Counsel and the parties to diligently work to resolve the action without the need for a trial continuance. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.