Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV36995, Date: 2024-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36995    Hearing Date: October 28, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:  Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff David Rubio (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Nicholas Di Fruscia, Trustee of The Christopher C. Boutelle Living Trust (“Di Fruscia”), The Estate of Christopher C. Boutelle (“Estate”), and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, alleging causes of action for (1) Statutory Liability for Damages  - Gov. Code Section 835, 840.2, 840.4; and (2) General Negligence. The City now moves for an order continuing the trial and all related trial dates in this matter.

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).)¿¿¿ 

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).)

ANALYSIS

Here, the City contends the earliest available hearing date for its Motion for Summary Judgment was May 28, 2025, which is after the trial date currently set for January 2, 2025. As such, the City argues good cause and undue prejudice exists for the Court to issue an order continuing the trial date, so that the Motion for Summary Judgment may be heard prior to trial. The motion for summary judgment was timely filed on September 16, 2024.

In opposition, Plaintiff and Defendant Di Fruscia argue good cause does not exist to continue the trial date because the City waited until September 16, 2024 to file its summary judgment motion when this case was filed in November 2022. The parties also note the trial date has been previously continued twice by way of stipulation. (Mot. at 5:14-15; Def. Opp’n at 3:1; Plf. Opp’n at 4:3-5.)

However, in light of Defendant’s statutory right to have the motion for summary judgment heard, the Court grants the motion to continue trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Motion to Continue Trial.

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

The Final Status Conference is continued to June 16, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

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

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.