Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV25688, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV25688 Hearing Date: April 10, 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
DEPARTMENT |
32 |
HEARING DATE |
April
10, 2024 |
CASE NUMBER |
22STCV25688 |
MOTION |
Motion to Continue Trial |
MOVING PARTIES |
Defendant
City of Pasadena |
OPPOSING PARTY |
Unopposed
|
MOTION
Defendant City of Pasadena (“Defendant”) moves to continue trial in
order for its summary judgment motion, currently set for September 18, 2024, to
be heard before trial. No opposition has been filed.
BACKGROUND
The complaint was filed on August 9, 2022.
The answer was filed on September 14, 2022.
Trial was originally set for February 6, 2024.
On January 5, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued
trial to August 6, 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).)
¿
Discussion
Defendant requests that the Court continue trial in this case to October
18, 2024 based on a September 18, 2024 hearing for Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment. 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.) No opposition has been filed for this motion. Accordingly,
the Court finds good cause to continue the trial date so that Defendant’s
summary judgment motion may be heard before trial.
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
The Court grants Defendant’s motion to continue trial.
The Final Status Conference is continued to October 3, 2024 at 10:00
a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
Trial is continued to October 18, 2024 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.
Defendant shall give notice of this order, and file a proof of service
of such.