Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 23STCV12008, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

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.

Defendants San Francisco Aids Foundation and Los Angeles LGBT Center (“Defendants”) move to consolidate their motions for summary judgment, currently scheduled on May 5, 2025 and May 6, 2025. They also move to advance the hearing date to before trial, or alternatively, to continue trial. Plaintiff has filed a limited opposition only towards advancing the hearings. Defendants reply.

On June 5, 2024, Defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment. The hearings for summary judgment are currently scheduled for May 5, 2025 and May 6, 2025.

“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;

(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.”

“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:

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(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;

(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.

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).)¿¿¿

First, Defendants move to consolidate their motions for summary judgment on a single date since they deal with the same facts and legal theories. The Court notes that the summary judgment motions each assert a total defense to Plaintiff’s action based on the doctrine of waiver and assumption of the risk. Accordingly, the Court grants the request to consolidate the hearings on the same date.

The Court denies the request to advance the hearing date, but does find good cause to continue trial. 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 August 7, 2024.

Defendants timely served their motions for summary judgment on June 5, 2024. Defendants argue that the earliest dates available for a summary judgment hearing were May 5, 2025 and May 6, 2025. (Byassee Decl. ¶¶ 5–6.) Since that date is after trial, Defendant requests that the Court continue the trial date to allow for the motions for summary judgment to be heard.

Therefore, since Defendants have filed timely summary judgment motions, the Court finds good cause to continue trial.[1]

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part the motion to consolidate the summary judgment hearings and advance/continue trial. The motion for summary judgment set for hearing on May 6, 2025 is advanced and vacated, and set for hearing on May 5, 2025.

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

Trial is continued to June 16, 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.

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

[1] The motion requests a trial date of at least 30 days after the summary judgment hearing. (Motion, 7.) However, in reply, Defendants set forth a new argument that trial should be continued 6 months after the hearing so the parties can compete discovery. (Reply, 3.) The Court does not find good cause for such a long continuance, as there is no specificity regarding the argument that 30 days is insufficient to conduct expert discovery.

DEPARTMENT	32
HEARING DATE	July 23, 2024
CASE NUMBER	23STCV12008
MOTION	Motion to Consolidate the Hearings on Motions for Summary Judgment and to Advance the Hearing, or in the alternative, to Continue Trial
MOVING PARTIES	Defendants San Francisco Aids Foundation and Los Angeles LGBT Center
OPPOSING PARTY	Plaintiff Andre Goeritz