Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV36106, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36106    Hearing Date: August 5, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendants Nina Margarian Akopian and Gabriel Akopian (“Defendants”) move to continue trial and the expert discovery cut-off. Plaintiff Yvette Gulesserian (“Plaintiff”) opposes, and Defendants reply.

BACKGROUND

This case involves a motor vehicle accident. The complaint was filed on September 22, 2020. Trial was initially set for March 22, 2022.

Defendants’ answer was filed on November 20, 2020.  

On January 7, 2022, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to May 23, 2023.

On April 28, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application and continued trial and all related dates to October 31, 2023. (Min. Order, 4/28/23.)

On September 15, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application and continued trial and all related dates to February 16, 2024. The Court stated there would be no further continuance of the trial date absent sufficient good cause. (Min. Order, 9/15/23.)

On February 14, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to August 16, 2024. The order states: “No further continuance absent sufficient good cause.”

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

 “Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”  (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)  A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.  (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial. 

“To 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).)

“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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).)

“Although 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. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:

(1)   The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2)   The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3)   The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4)   The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(5)   The addition of a new party if:

(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or

(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case;

(6)   A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7)   A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

“In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include:

(1)   The proximity of the trial date;

(2)   Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay 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 or application for a continuance;

(5)   The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6)   If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7)   The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8)   Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9)   Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10)  Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11)  Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

A party may move for summary judgment “at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).)¿ Notice of the motion and supporting papers must be served on all other parties at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.¿ (Id., subd. (a)(2).)¿ The motion must be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.¿ (Id., subd. (a)(3).)¿¿¿ 

Discussion

Defendants ask the Court to continue trial from August 16, 2024 to September 5, 2025 in order to accommodate Gabriel Akopian’s motion for summary judgment which is scheduled to be heard May 28, 2025. Defendant electronically served his motion for summary judgment on June 14, 2024.

A party that timely files a motion for summary judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c has a right to have their motion heard before the start of trial. (Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.) If served electronically, a motion for summary judgment must be made at least 105 days before trial, plus two court days. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(2), (3).) Therefore, a motion for summary judgment in this case needed to be served by May 1, 2024. Because the motion was served on June 14, 2024, it was untimely.

Nevertheless, Defendants argue that the earliest date available for a summary judgment hearing was May 28, 2025. (Kandarian-Stein Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendants also argue that the parties participated in mediations in March 2024 to settle but were unsuccessful; this prompted the summary judgment motion. (Motion, 5; Kandarian-Stein Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendants contend additional time after the summary judgment hearing is required to allow the parties to prepare for trial. They also assert that Defendants’ counsel will be on vacation from June to August 2025. As a result, Defendants seek a continuance of trial and the expert discovery cut-off dates to September 5, 2025.

In opposition, Plaintiff notes that the summary judgment motion was filed late. Plaintiff argues there is no good cause to continue trial since Defendant could have filed the motion earlier. Instead, Plaintiff contends the continuance is a strategy to move the trial close to the five-year limit so the case can be dismissed. The complaint was filed on September 22, 2020.

In reply, Defendants assert that they diligently conducted discovery until 2022, and thereafter sought alternative dispute resolutions. Defendants also asserts they could stipulate to extend the five-year statute to avoid any concerns about a dismissal. (Reply, 4.)

The motion for summary judgment as to one of the two defendants asserts that the defendant’s deposition was conducted in February 2022. (Kandarian-Stein Decl. ¶ 3.) Although counsel suggests that a summary judgment motion was not filed because the parties were attempting to settle the matter, counsel does not explain why the motion was not timely filed given the mediation was on March 6, 2024 and was unsuccessful.[1] (Id. ¶ 4.) Accordingly, although the first available summary judgment hearing date purportedly was not until May 2025 (id. ¶ 5), counsel does not explain why the motion nevertheless was not timely filed and served by May 1, 2024. The motion (not the declaration), asserts that “it took some time to research, prepare and file the motion for summary judgment.” (Motion at p. 5.) This assertion is not supported by any facts, particularly since the deposition was completed more than two years prior. Finally, Defendants argue, again without any facts, that “expert discovery is not complete and would be better served if completed closer to trial.” (Motion at p. 5.) There is no specificity for the Court to conclude that a continuance is necessary, when trial is scheduled for August 26, 2024.

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to continue trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

Defendants shall give notice of this order, and file a proof of service of such.