Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV41706, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV41706    Hearing Date: January 4, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Cesar Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Teresa Montes De Oca and Robert Martinez (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging causes of action for negligence and premises liability. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff suffered a fall when he stepped on a “faulty balcony” that collapsed at Defendants’ property.  (Compl. at p. 5.)  Trial is currently set for January 25, 2023. 

Defendants now move to continue the current trial date at least 120 days to allow Defendants’ motion for leave to file a First Amended Answer to be heard, which is currently set for hearing on March 6, 2023.  Plaintiff opposes the motion to continue trial, and Defendants 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, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the worker’s compensation exclusivity doctrine, but the exclusive remedy defense under the Workers’ Compensation Act was not pled as a defense in Defendants’ answer to the complaint.  Defendants previously moved for summary judgement on the grounds that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for Plaintiff, but the summary judgment motion was denied because Defendants failed to plead the exclusive remedy as a defense.  (Min. Order, Oct. 7, 2022.)  Defendants assert they have now determined it is necessary to amend their answer, and that immediately following the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Defendants reserved the first available hearing date for a motion for leave to amend their answer, which was March 6, 2023, after the current trial date.  Defendants provide the requested continuance and proposed amendment are not being sought for purposes of bringing another summary judgment motion, but rather are sought so Defendants can assert the defense at the time of trial. 

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendants fail to demonstrate good cause for the continuance.[1]  Plaintiff asserts that the Court already denied an ex parte application to continue the trial date by Defendants, and that Defendants delayed in seeking to continue the trial date.  Plaintiff contends that all discovery has been concluded, and that Plaintiff will be prejudiced if the trial is continued.

In reply, Defendants contend that the fact that the first available hearing date for the motion for leave to amend is not until after trial is due to the Court’s impacted calendar, not Defendants.  Defendants contend they are complying with the Court’s 8th Amended Standing Order and seeking to continue trial to allow the motion for leave to amend to be heard.  Additionally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced because discovery has not been completed, and because Plaintiff has been aware of the affirmative defense since April 2022. 

The Court notes that in denying Defendants’ ex parte application to continue trial the Court found, “the applicant's declaration provides no exigent circumstances. Indeed, it appears that they have known since October that a continuance would be necessary but failed to file a noticed motion. Further, dates for noticed motions remain available prior to trial. [¶] The request is denied on an ex parte basis.”  (Min. Order, Dec. 1, 2022.)  The Court, thus, did not reach the merits of Defendants’ request to continue the trial date. 

Defendants filed their motion for leave to amend their answer on November 23, 2022.  Although upon checking on the morning of the ex parte application, the Court believed that a noticed motion could be heard before trial, Defendants attest that the first available hearing date is not until after the current trial date.  More specifically, they state under penalty of perjury that immediately after their motion for summary judgment was denied, they reserved the first available date for a motion to amend their answer, and it was on March 6, 2023, and that they have not found an earlier date since then.  (Karayan Decl. at ¶ 11.)  As the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Defendants now properly seek to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date on the motion for leave to amend.  To the extent that Plaintiff contend that the request for leave to amend the answer is improper, the Court will not decide the merits of Defendants’ motion for leave at this time.  Additionally, although Plaintiff contends he will be prejudiced if Defendants bring a second motion for summary judgment, in their moving papers and reply, Defendants state that they do not intend to file a second motion for summary judgment in this action.[2]  The fact that Plaintiff would have to litigate against an additional affirmative defense by Defendants alone does not establish sufficient prejudice warranting denying the request to continue trial. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants establish good cause to continue the trial date.  Nevertheless, as Plaintiff asserts, trial in this action has already been continued twice.  The parties must expect no further continuances.  They must plan all discovery and motion practice accordingly. 

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted.  The January 25, 2023 trial date is continued to June 22, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The January 11, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to June 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are to be based on the new trial date. 

Defendants are 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 4^th day of January 2023