This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/03/2019 at 00:49:12 (UTC).

TAKEEMA HODGES VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/16/2018 TAKEEMA HODGES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. 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.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2597

  • Filing Date:

    04/16/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HODGES TAKEEMA

Respondents and Defendants

COMPTON CITY OF

DOES 1 THROUGH 25 INCLUSIVE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

NATANIAN NAVID A. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

CORNWELL CRAIG J. DEPUTY CITY ATTY

 

Court Documents

Answer

9/6/2018: Answer

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

8/1/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Defendant's Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court (Small Claims)

7/25/2018: Defendant's Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court (Small Claims)

Other -

7/25/2018: Other -

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

7/5/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/28/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/06/2018
  • Answer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Compton, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • Partial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Takeema Hodges (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Takeema Hodges (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • Defendant's Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court (Small Claims)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • Amended Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Takeema Hodges (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Takeema Hodges (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Takeema Hodges (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Takeema Hodges (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****2597 Hearing Date: February 9, 2022 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

TAKEEMA HODGES,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CITY OF COMPTON, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: ****2597

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 9, 2022

On April 16, 2018, Plaintiff, Takeema Hodges (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Compton (“Defendant”) for damages relating to an alleged dangerous condition of public property. Trial in this matter is currently set for April 18, 2022.

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date to October 10, 2022, or a date thereafter.

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial. (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).) Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the proximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Here, Defendant avers a continuance is necessary because defense counsel recently substituted in as counsel on January 4, 2022, and there is still crucial discovery required to be conducted, including the deposition of Plaintiff and other key witnesses. Further, defense counsel provides it has a calendar conflict and is scheduled to be in trial in a federal jury trial set to commence on April 18, 2022. Defendant contends no party will be prejudiced by the continuance and that Plaintiff joins the request to continue trial.

The motion is unopposed, and Defendant establishes good cause for the continuance in light of need to complete discovery and because defense counsel was recently substituted into the action. Given the age of the case, the parties should expect no further continuances. Counsel should meet and confer immediately to plan their discovery and motion practice, follow through on that plan, and prepare for trial. Failure to do so will not be good cause for continuance. If any party attempts to seek a continuance, they must in the first paragraph of the request acknowledge that they have been put on notice of this in this Order.

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted. The April 18, 2021, trial date is continued to , 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The April 4, 2022, FSC is continued to , 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31. All discovery and expert cut-off dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

Dated this 9th day of February 2022

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where COMPTON CITY OF is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer NATANIAN NAVID A. ESQ.