TAKEEMA HODGES VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

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

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:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 9^th day of February 2022