On 03/08/2018 VACHEL A BROWN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY OF PASADENA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are YOLANDA OROZCO, OWEN LEE KWONG, ELAINE LU, STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH, CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
OWEN LEE KWONG
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
DANIEL M. CROWLEY
BROWN VACHEL A.
PASADENA CITY OF
DOES 1 TO 50
CITY OF PASADENA
ROES 1 THROUGH 50
AIKEN INVESTMENTS L.P. (ROE 2)
KENTER INVESTMENTS L.P. (ROE 1)
KENTER INVESTMENTS L.P. ROE 1
AIKEN INVESTMENTS L.P. ROE 2
SALUSKY ANNA R.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP APC
SALUSKY ANNA ROBERTA
BAGNERIS MICHELE BEAL CITY ATTORNEY
NEBENZAHL MICHAEL RALPH
MICHAEL MACGUIRE & ASSOCIATES
NEBENZAHL MICHAEL R.
5/22/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE
4/1/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
12/13/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date
9/13/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE LINDA LEE, CSR #13568
9/6/2019: Separate Statement
9/9/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
9/10/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: RECUSAL) OF 09/10/2019
4/25/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASH CROSS-DEFENDANTS AIKEN INVESTMENTS, L.P. AND KENTER INVESTMENTS, L.P. SUBPOENA FOR MEDICAL RECORDS FROM KAISER PERMANENTE BILLING DE
4/10/2019: Motion to Quash
4/10/2019: Separate Statement
10/23/2018: Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant City of Pasadena
8/28/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -
8/28/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES
6/12/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -
5/21/2018: ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH -
3/21/2018: Minute Order -
3/8/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -
3/8/2018: SUMMONS -
Hearing03/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: DismissalRead MoreRead Less
Hearing09/04/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (of Trial Setting Conference); Filed by Vachel A. Brown (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by City of Pasadena (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:41 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/01/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:31 AM in Department 98; (Affidavit of Prejudice; Court makes order) -Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2018-03-21 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketPEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., 170.6)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEESRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Vachel A. Brown (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC697187 Hearing Date: January 13, 2020 Dept: 4A
Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff Vachel A. Brown (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant City of Pasadena alleging a dangerous condition of public property for a trip-and-fall that occurred on September 30, 2016.
On April 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
On May 21, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Complainant City of Pasadena filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 50 seeking equitable and implied indemnity, declaratory relief, and contribution.
On June 12, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Complainant City of Pasadena filed amendments to the cross-complaint renaming Roe 1 as Cross-Defendant Kenter Investments, L.P. and Roe 2 as Cross-Defendant Aiken Investments, L.P.
On November 19, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Isabelle Chemla.
On December 13, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant City of Pasadena filed a motion to continue trial and related dates pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050.
Trial is set for January 24, 2020.
Defendant/Cross-Complainant City of Pasadena (“Moving Party”) asks the Court to continue trial to May 4, 2020 and to relate all discovery deadlines to that trial date because the parties have agreed to mediate this action on January 28, 2020.
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.)
Moving Defendant argues there is good cause to continue trial. The parties have agreed to participate in mediation on January 28, 2020. (Koo Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) There has been one prior continuance. (Koo Decl., ¶ 2.) All parties have agreed to a May 4, 2020 trial date. (Koo Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. A.)
The Court finds it in the interest of justice to continue trial because of the parties agreement to participate in mediation. However, no facts have been presented to the Court showing that the discovery cut-off dates should also be continued. Rather, Jodie Koo’s declaration shows that discovery has been completed. (See Koo Decl., ¶ 9.)
The motion is GRANTED.
The Court orders trial shall be continued to May 4, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. The Court also orders the final status conference date shall be continued to April 20, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Both hearings are to be held in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. All discovery cut-off dates are to remain in relation to the January 24, 2020 trial date.
Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.