Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV20240, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20240    Hearing Date: November 13, 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

Defendant 1661, Inc. dba GOAT (“Defendant”) moves to specially set its motion for summary judgment or alternatively, to continue trial until after the summary judgment motion is heard. Plaintiff Chiquita Randle (“Plaintiff”) opposes and seeks sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. Defendant replies.

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on May 28, 2021. Trial was initially set for November 28, 2022.

            Defendant filed an answer on October 27, 2021.

            On September 14, 2022, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to October 4, 2023.

            On June 14, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, set for October 3, 2024.

            On July 12, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to November 15, 2024.

            On March 19, 2024, Defendant withdrew the previously filed summary judgment motion and filed an amended motion summary judgment, set for October 3, 2024.

            On September 9, 2024, the Court granted in part Defendant’s motion to continue trial and continued trial to January 28, 2025. Only expert discovery cut-off dates attached to the new trial date. (Min. Order, 9/9/24.)

            On October 4, 2024, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

            On October 14, 2024, Defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment, currently set for June 18, 2025.

            On October 22, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of its motion for summary judgment/adjudication that was heard on October 4, 2024, and to hear its renewed motion. The hearing for this motion is currently set for January 6, 2024.

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

As an initial matter, Plaintiff argues this motion is procedurally defective since it was not served within the minimum statutory timeframe.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), moving papers must be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. Applying this, 16 court days before the current hearing was October 21, 2024. Additionally, if notice is served electronically, the 16-day notice period is increased by two-court days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(a).) Therefore, notice of this motion was due October 17, 2024. According to the proof of service, Defendant served this motion electronically on October 21, 2024. Therefore, because notice was not provided within the minimum timeline provided under section 1005, the motion is procedurally defective.  

The Court declines to award sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 since Plaintiff has failed to show compliance with the procedural requirements. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(c).)  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to specially set hearing date or continue trial, without prejudice.

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