Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV10989, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10989    Hearing Date: October 25, 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.  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 Hollywood Chamber of Commerce (HCC) moves to continue trial and all related dates. Defendants Hollywood Historic Trust, Nationwide RP Corporation, and California Drive-In Theatres, Inc. join in the motion. Nationwide RP Corporation and California Drive-In Theaters, Inc. have separately moved for a trial continuance which is scheduled to be heard on October 27, 2023. No opposition has been filed to either motion.

The Court advances and vacates Nationwide and California Drive-In’s motion in order to hear both motions to continue trial concurrently.

BACKGROUND

The complaint was filed on March 30, 2022 and alleged a premises liability cause of action against City of Los Angeles (City) and Does 1 to 50.  

On June 3, 2022, City filed a cross complaint against Roes 1 to 15.

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff added HCC (erroneously as “Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, Hollywood Historic Trust”) as Doe 1, and California Drive-In Theatres, Inc. as Doe 2.

On November 21, 2022, Plaintiff added Nationwide RP Corporation as Doe 3.

On February 10, 2023 Defendants Nationwide RP Corporation, and California Drive-In Theatres, Inc. filed an answer and a cross-complaint against City and HCC.

On February 22, 2023, HCC filed an answer to the complaint.

On March 21, 2023, HCC filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

On July 21, 2023, the Court, on an ex parte application, continued trial from September 27, 2023 to December 8, 2023.

On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff added Hollywood Historic Trust as Doe 4, to the complaint.

On August 29, 2023, Hollywood Historic Trust filed an answer.

Hollywood Chamber of Commerce (HCC) filed this motion on September 29, 2023.

Nationwide and California Drive-In filed their motion on October 3, 2023.

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

HCC, Nationwide, and California Drive-In move to continue trial to January 2025 or no later than late 2024.

On July 21, 2023, the Court granted HCC’s ex parte application to continue trial, in part, and expressly ruled that Defendant must timely file and serve any further motion to continue trial. (See Minute Order Dated July 21, 2023.) Rather than file a motion, Defendant appeared again ex parte to continue trial. On August 16, 2023, the Court denied the ex parte application because Defendant still had not filed a motion (or stipulation) to continue trial, among other reasons. (See Minute Order Dated August 16, 2023.) Next, Defendant again appeared ex parte to continue trial. The Court denied the request, expressly ruling that the declaration does not set forth with specificity the good cause for the lengthy continuance requested, other than to state the generalized need to conduct discovery and possible motion for summary judgment. (See Minute Order Dated September 26, 2023.) At that time, no motion for summary judgment had been filed.

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.) Here, HCC filed and served a motion for summary judgment on August 4, 2023. Since the deadline to file a summary judgment motion based on the current trial date was August 25, 2023, HCC was timely. The hearing for summary judgment is currently scheduled for December 7, 2023, one day before trial. Therefore, good cause exists to continue the trial for a short time to allow for the motion to be heard.

However, HCC still has not set forth with specificity the good cause to justify the request to continue for more than one year. Although the denial of the ex parte application notified HCC that it would need to provide more specificity, HCC has provided no detail regarding the outstanding discovery needed to be conducted and why it cannot be completed more timely.

Nationwide and California Drive-In provide some detail, but not with specificity. They allege that discovery responses were provided in July 2023. (Mersereau Dec. ¶ 7.) They further allege they need time to conduct discovery on HHT and depose the person most knowledgeable. (Id. ¶ 10.) They further allege that Plaintiff’s medical records were recently provided and Defendants are evaluating damages. (Id. ¶ 13.) The length of time requested by Nationwide and California Drive-In appears to be based on the reserved dates for motions for summary judgment on November 13 and 14, 2024.

However, the Court notes that no motions have yet been filed, and earlier hearing dates may become available. Based on the information provided about outstanding discovery, the Court grants a shorter request to continue the trial date. To the extent that motions for summary judgment are timely filed and earlier hearing dates do not become available, the Court would reconsider a request to continue trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue trial in part.

The trial date, currently set for December 8, 2023, is continued to August 12, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

The Final Status Conference, currently set for November 21, 2023, is continued to July 29, 2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

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

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