Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV17372, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17372    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Oscar Roberts and Emily Roberts (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action against defendant L.A. Arena Company, LLC (“Defendant”), et al. for injuries relating to a slip and fall on defendant’s property.  Trial in this matter is currently set for February 17, 2023. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date so that its motion for summary judgment, which is set for hearing on September 12, 2023, can be heard prior to trial.  Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and ABM filed a reply.[1] 

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, Defendant asserts that it timely filed and served its motion for summary judgment on August 10, 2022, but the earliest available hearing date for the motion was September 12, 2023.  Defendant argues it will suffer undue prejudice if its motion for summary judgment is not heard prior to trial and that there are no alternative means to address this issue. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant delayed in filing its motion for summary judgment despite prior trial continuances and that Defendant’s own lack of diligence prevented its motion for summary judgment from being filed earlier.  Plaintiff argues that Defendant fails to show good cause for the requested continuance. 

Defendant, in reply, asserts that its current counsel substituted into the action on February 22, 2022, and that once further investigation and discovery was completed, Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment.  Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not stipulated to continuing trial or advancing the hearing date on its motion for summary judgment, so Defendant’s only recourse is to seek to continue trial. 

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, although Plaintiff contends that Defendant delayed in filing its motion for summary judgment, Defendant timely filed its motion for summary judgment on August 10, 2022, more than six months before the current trial date, but Defendant’s inability to have the motion heard is due to the Court’s calendar.  Moreover, Defendant is seeking the instant continuance approximately four months before trial, as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date. Moreover, Defendant acknowledges, Defendant’s previously filed ex parte application and motion to advance the hearing date on its motion for summary judgment were denied because of the impacted calendar of this Court.  Defendant now properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides a party should do in this situation.  There are no alternative means to address this issue.  However, given the age of this case, and the length of the continuance that will be granted, the parties should expect no further continuances in this matter. 

ABM’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The February 17, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The February 1, 2023 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. 

Defendant ABM 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 20^th day of October 2022