Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV08506, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08506    Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff Richard Mupenzi, through his Guardian ad Litem Monica Mbabazi (“Mbabazi”), and Monica Mbabazi, an individual (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against defendants Miracle Home Health Care, Inc., Total Physical Therapy, and Kevin Arroyo for damages arising out of an in-home care session.  On September 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Kevin Tanaka as Doe 1.  On October 26, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which removed Arroyo and Miracle Home as defendants.  On February 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Vladimir Stojanovic (“Stojanovic”) as Doe 2.  Trial is currently set for May 5, 2023. 

Defendant Stojanovic now moves for an order advancing his motion for summary judgment, which is currently set for October 5, 2023, to March 2023, so that it can be heard prior to the trial date.  Alternatively, Stojanovic moves to continue the current trial date to a date after his motion for summary judgment is set to be heard.  Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and Stojanovic 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, Stojanovic provides that he timely filed and served his motion for summary judgment on August 25, 2022, but the earliest available hearing date was October 5, 2023.  Stojanovic contends he will be irreparably harmed if his motion for summary judgment is not heard prior to trial. 

Plaintiffs, in opposition, assert that they do not oppose advancing the hearing date on the motion for summary judgment to a date prior to the current trial date, but Plaintiffs state they vehemently oppose a trial continuance because Stojanovic delayed in filing the motion for summary judgment.  In reply, Stojanovic contends that if the motion for summary judgment cannot be advanced, there is good cause to continue the trial date for the motion to be heard.

The request for an order specially setting Stojanovic’s motion for summary judgment for hearing is denied.  As the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, the Personal Injury courts do not have the capacity to add hearings to their fully booked motion calendars.  The proper relief to seek is to continue trial instead of seeking to advance or shorten the hearing time.

As to the request to continue the trial date, 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, Stojanovic has timely filed his motion for summary judgment, but Stojanovic’s inability to have the motion heard is due to the Court’s calendar.  Moreover, while Plaintiffs contend that Stojanovic delayed in filing his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs concede that Stojanovic was only named as a defendant in this action on February 1, 2022, and that he filed his motion for summary judgment approximately seven months later.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.

Defendant Stojanovic’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The May 5, 2022 trial date is continued to November 6, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The April 21, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to October 23, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cut-off dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

Stojanovic 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 28^th day of September 2022