Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV23264, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV23264    Hearing Date: July 29, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Loan Nguyen, Theresa Lam, and Jessica Lam (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants BP International, Inc. and Pico Rivera Collection, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) for wrongful death caused by an alleged dangerous property condition and negligence. 

Defendants now move to continue the current trial date, or alternatively, to advance the hearing date on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiffs oppose the motion, 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 assert they reserved the first available hearing date of February 3, 2023, for their motion for summary judgment, which is after the current trial date.  Defendants contend the trial date should thus be continued to allow their motion for summary judgment to be heard prior to trial.  Alternatively, Defendants move to advance the hearing date for the summary judgment motion to a date prior to trial. 

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue Defendants fail to establish good cause for a continuance.  Plaintiffs contend Defendants were dilatory in filing their motion for summary judgment, and that the motion lacks merit. 

Defendants, in reply, assert they reserved the first available hearing date for their motion for summary judgment, but the hearing date was not until after the current trial date. 

As to the request for an order specially setting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment for hearing, 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.  The request to advance the hearing date on the motion for summary judgment is denied.

            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, Defendants have timely filed their motion for summary judgment, but Defendants’ inability to have the motion heard is due to the court’s calendar.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted.  The September 20, 2022, trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The September 7, 2022, Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cut-off dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• The court is not available to hear oral argument on this date.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative and want oral argument, the hearing will have to be continued, and the parties must work with the clerk to find an available date for the continuance.
• 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 29^th day of July 2022