On January 28, 2019 a
No Value
was filed
involving a dispute between
and
Los Angeles Unified School District A California Public Entity And Does 1 Through 100 Inclusive.,
for Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 52
19STCV02750 December 17, 2021
JOHN DOE, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD 8:30 AM
LITEM, JOAN DOE vs LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, AND DOES 1
THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE.
Judge: Honorable Armen Tamzarian CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: M. De Luna ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: T. Isunza Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances
For Defendant(s): Justin Hays Sanders by Raymond Perez (Telephonic)
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial
Matter is NOT called for hearing.
IN CHAMBERS:
Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District applies, ex parte, to continue the trial from
February 23, 2022, to August 8, 2022 “at the earliest.” Defendant seeks a new trial so that it can
conduct additional discovery.
Defendant has not shown good cause for a trial continuance. This case has been pending since
January 28, 2019. The parties have had nearly three years to complete discovery and to file any
discovery motions they deem necessary. Had the parties acted diligently, they could have
completed discovery and been prepared for trial sometime in 2020, more than a year ago.
Defendant has not filed any evidence showing that it has diligently propounded discovery and
prepared for trial. Indeed, it does not even claim that it has acted with reasonable diligence. The
failure of a party to diligently prepare for trial is not good cause to continue the trial. (Kuhland v.
Sedgwick (1860) 17 Cal. 123, 128 [“The absence of evidence is no cause for a continuance,
unless reasonable diligence has been used to procure it”]; People v. Grant (1988) 45 Cal.3d 829,
844 [a defendant’s failure to diligently prepare for trial is not good cause for a continuance].)
This is not the first time either party has sought a trial continuance. On June 9, 2020, and on
March 12, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulated proposed orders for trial continuance.
On December 6, 2021, however, the court rejected the parties’ third stipulation for a trial
continuance because the parties failed to provide any evidence that they have diligently prepared
Minute Order Page 1 of 2
Document Filed Date
December 17, 2021
Case Filing Date
January 28, 2019
Category
Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Request for Dismissal - Before Trial not following ADR or more than 60 days since ADR 08/22/2023
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 52 19STCV02750 December 17, 2021 JOHN DOE, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD 8:30 AM LITEM, JOAN DOE vs LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE. Judge: Honorable Armen Tamzarian CSR: None Judicial Assistant: M. De Luna ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: T. Isunza Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances For Defendant(s): Justin Hays Sanders by Raymond Perez (Telephonic) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Matter is NOT called for hearing. IN CHAMBERS: Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District applies, ex parte, to continue the trial from February 23, 2022, to August 8, 2022 “at the earliest.” Defendant seeks a new trial so that it can conduct additional discovery. Defendant has not shown good cause for a trial continuance. This case has been pending since January 28, 2019. The parties have had nearly three years to complete discovery and to file any discovery motions they deem necessary. Had the parties acted diligently, they could have completed discovery and been prepared for trial sometime in 2020, more than a year ago. Defendant has not filed any evidence showing that it has diligently propounded discovery and prepared for trial. Indeed, it does not even claim that it has acted with reasonable diligence. The failure of a party to diligently prepare for trial is not good cause to continue the trial. (Kuhland v. Sedgwick (1860) 17 Cal. 123, 128 [“The absence of evidence is no cause for a continuance, unless reasonable diligence has been used to procure it”]; People v. Grant (1988) 45 Cal.3d 829, 844 [a defendant’s failure to diligently prepare for trial is not good cause for a continuance].) This is not the first time either party has sought a trial continuance. On June 9, 2020, and on March 12, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulated proposed orders for trial continuance. On December 6, 2021, however, the court rejected the parties’ third stipulation for a trial continuance because the parties failed to provide any evidence that they have diligently prepared Minute Order Page 1 of 2