Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV25607, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25607    Hearing Date: April 12, 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

Defendants Bonnie Furgurson, James Furgurson, and Katherine Furgurson (“Defendant”) move to continue trial in order for their summary judgment motion, currently set for December 10, 2024, to be heard before trial. Plaintiffs Thomas Robert Brown and Erin Michelle Brown oppose, and Defendants reply.

BACKGROUND

The complaint was filed on August 9, 2022.

The answer was filed on September 15, 2022. Trial was originally set for February 6, 2024.

On October 13, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to June 5, 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).)¿¿Therefore, a motion for summary judgment must be made at least 105 days before trial. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(2), (3).) 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.)

 ¿ 

Discussion

Defendants request that the Court continue trial in this case to January 13, 2025 based on a December 10, 2024 hearing for Defendants’ summary judgment motion.

Defendants filed and served their motion for summary judgment on March 1, 2024, which was 96 days before trial.

In support, Defendants also argue that the parties must conduct 30 witness depositions that will not be completed by the June 5, 2024 trial. (Motion, 6.) Defendants’ counsel also argues she has two trials scheduled for May 31, 2024 and June 3, 2024, that will likely go forward and cause a scheduling conflict. (Fersch Decl. ¶ 16.)

Plaintiffs argue that though Defendants reserved their summary judgment motion in September 2023, they did not take diligent steps to advance the hearing until March 2024. They also contend that Defendants have not provided proper support for their assertion that 30 depositions are required, and further argue it is not guaranteed that Defendants’ counsel’s trials will go forward.

In reply, Defendants set forth a deposition schedule for 21 witnesses taking place from April 11, 2024 to May 1, 2024. (Reply, 5.) Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs articulated no prejudice if the trial is continued and note this case has only been pending for 1 year and 8 months.

In addition, on April 9, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, but permitted Plaintiff leave to amend.

Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial date.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

The Final Status Conference is continued to January 2, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Trial is continued to January 16, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

All discovery and related deadlines are associated with the new trial date.

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