Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV12734, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12734    Hearing Date: November 7, 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. 

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE COURT IS UNAVAILABLE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION. IF A PARTY REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT, THE HEARING WILL BE CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 8, 2024 AT 1:30 P.M.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendant City of Pico Rivera (“Defendant”) moves to continue trial to accommodate a summary judgment hearing before trial, or alternatively to advance and specially set the hearing date. Plaintiff Patricia Guirado (“Plaintiff”) opposes and Defendant replies.

BACKGROUND

The complaint was filed on April 15, 2022. Trial was initially set for October 13, 2023.

Defendant’s answer was filed on July 22, 2022.  

On September 15, 2023, on its own motion, the Court vacated the trial date. A trial setting conference was set for September 29, 2023. (Min. Order, 9/15/24.)

Trial was then set for November 7, 2023. The discovery/motion cut-off date was based on the trial date, pursuant to oral request of counsel for defendant. (Min. Order, 9/29/23.)

On October 26, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to September 23, 2024.

On May 8, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint. Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint on May 9, 2024.

Defendant filed its answer on June 5, 2024.

On June 6, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.

On June 12, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and related dates to January 24, 2025.

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

Defendant requests the Court continue trial in this case to after the March 19, 2025 summary judgment hearing. 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 June 6, 2024.

 Defendant timely served and filed its motion for summary judgment on June 6, 2024. Since the hearing date is after trial, Defendant requests that the Court continue the trial date to allow for the motion for summary judgment to be heard.

Plaintiff does not oppose a continuance, but only opposes advancing the hearing date.

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

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to continue trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to continue trial.

The Final Status Conference is continued to April 7, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Trial is continued to April 21, 2025 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.  

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