Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV26415, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26415    Hearing Date: August 4, 2023    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 (which is highly encouraged).  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

BACKGROUND

This personal injury action is based on a slip and fall that occurred on July 19, 2019. Plaintiff Alisia Green (“Plaintiff”) alleges having sustained injuries from the subject accident.

On July 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant action’s Complaint against Defendant Slauson Super Mall, Inc. (“Slauson”), alleging one cause of action for premises liability.

On July 13, 2023, Slauson filed the instant motion to continue trial. On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a declaration in support of the motion.

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. Whether the parties have stipulated to the postponement is a relevant factor for consideration. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 595.2, but see

Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753, 756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely

“directory”].)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant Slauson seeks an order continuing the current trial date on the grounds that lead trial counsel for Slauson, David G. Halm, will be at his uncle’s funeral in Hawaii on September 1, 2023, i.e., the same date for trial. (Halm Decl. ¶ 4.) Slauson also notes Mr. Halm has a trial commencing in another case on October 5, 2023, and a continuance would facilitate preparation for that trial. The parties have also stipulated to continuing the trial. (Vajdi Decl., Ex. 1.) Counsel for Plaintiff has filed a declaration indicating that Plaintiff agrees to a continuance because the parties are currently in the process of setting a mediation, and would like to have time to conduct additional depositions if the case does not resolve.  (Terzian Decl., ¶ 6.)

            The Court finds good cause to grant a short continuance of the trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

The Trial date, currently set for September 1, 2023, is continued to December 7, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32.

The Final Status Conference, currently set for August 17, 2023, is continued to November 20, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32.

All pre-trial dates and deadlines are reset according to the new trial date and, where applicable, the new Final Status Conference date.

No further continuances absent good cause.

Defendant Slauson shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.