Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV01502, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01502    Hearing Date: February 21, 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

On January 13, 2022 Plaintiff Marc Anthony Olague (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Alhambra, Alhambra Valley Properties, LLC, Chase Centers Management, Inc., and Does 1 to 50 for negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff alleges he was injured on a raised sidewalk.

On November 29, 2023, Defendants/Cross-Complainants/Cross-Defendants Alhambra Valley Properties, LLC and Chase Center Management, Inc. (“Defendants”) moved to continue trial and all related dates to accommodate a summary judgment motion. No opposition has been filed.  

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on January 13, 2022.

            Defendants’ answer and cross complaint was filed on February 16, 2022.  

            On April 4, 2022, City of Alhambra answered the complaint and filed a cross complaint against Defendants. Defendants answered the cross-complaint on May 6, 2022.

            On February 14, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to January 11, 2024.

On September 20, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to May 1, 2024.

On October 2, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, set to be heard on October 7, 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).)

Discussion

Defendants request the Court continue trial in this case to 30 days after the October 7, 2024 summary judgment hearing. In the alternative, Defendants ask the Court to advance the hearing date to the first convenient date no later than April 1, 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 107 days before trial. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(2), (3).) Therefore, a motion for summary judgment in this case needed to be filed by January 15, 2024.  

 Defendants timely filed their motion for summary judgment on October 2, 2023. Defendants argue that the earliest date available for a summary judgment hearing was October 7, 2024. (Hall Decl. ¶ 14.) Since that date is after trial, Defendants request that the Court continue the trial date to allow for the motion for summary judgment to be heard. No opposition has been filed.

Therefore, since Defendants have filed a timely summary judgment motion, the Court finds good cause to continue trial.  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue trial. 

The Final Status Conference is continued to October 24, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

Trial is continued to November 7, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be in accordance with the new trial date.¿¿ 

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