Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV29982, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV29982    Hearing Date: November 7, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff Natalia Farr (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Lincoln Place Garden for damages arising from a trip and fall on the lawn of a property located at or near 1050 Frederick St., Venice, CA 90291.  Trial in this matter is currently set for January 12, 2023. 

As relevant to this matter, on April 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint naming the F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company (“Bartlett”), erroneously served and sued herein as Bartlett Tree Experts, as Doe 2.  Defendant Bartlett now moves to continue the current trial date to a date after Bartlett’s motion for summary judgment, which is set to be heard on May 5, 2023.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Bartlett filed a reply. 

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:  (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance 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; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Here, Bartlett asserts that the first available hearing date for its motion for summary judgment, which it filed on September 28, 2022, was May 5, 2023.  Bartlett contends it will be prejudiced if its motion for summary judgment is not heard prior to trial, and that Bartlett has no other means to address this issue. 

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that she does not oppose continuing the trial in this matter to a date after Bartlett’s motion for summary judgment is set for hearing, but Plaintiff opposes advancing the summary judgment motion hearing date.  Plaintiff contends she will be prejudiced by advancing the hearing date because it will shorten the notice period for her to oppose the motion for summary judgment. 

In reply, Bartlett asserts that because Plaintiff does not oppose the trial continuance request, the trial should be continued to July 17, 2023. 

The Court is guided by the case of Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court.  The Court therein held that a trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.  (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918. 919.)  Local rules and practices may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion. (Id.; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529.)  “We are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment.  However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions.”  (Id., at p. 530.)

In this case, Bartlett has timely filed its motion for summary judgment, but Bartlett’s inability to have the motion heard is due to the court’s calendar.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.  Moreover, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Bartlett properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date. 

Bartlett’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The January 12, 2023 trial date is continued to July 17, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The December 22, 2022 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

The trial date was selected by the parties, who had the opportunity to check their calendars and those of their witnesses.  Given the age of this case, the parties must expect no further continuances.  The parties are put on express notice that they must plan discovery, motion, and alternative dispute resolution accordingly.  Failure to do so will not constitute good cause for a continuance.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 7^th day of November 2022