Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV25778, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV25778    Hearing Date: September 16, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Jarad Bryan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Jarelle Kate Sisayan Cenidoza and Does 1 though 75 for damages arising from a motor vehicle vs. bicycle accident.  Plaintiff has filed Amendments to Complaint naming Sunrise Senior Living, LLC and Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. as Does 51 and 52, respectively.  Trial is currently set for November 9, 2022. 

Defendants Sunrise Senior Living, LLC and Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) now move to continue the current trial date so that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which is set for September 6, 2023, can be heard prior to trial.  Alternatively, Defendants request an order specially setting the hearing date on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff opposes 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 contend there is good cause to continue the trial date because Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc., who Defendants assert is the correct entity named in this action, was only served on April 8, 2022.  Defendants assert that as a result, Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. has only been in the case four months and will not have necessary time to complete all necessary depositions, conduct written discovery and obtain a defense medical exam of Plaintiff.  Additionally, Defendants assert they have timely filed a motion for summary judgment set for hearing on September 6, 2023, after the current trial date. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that there is no good cause to continue the trial date because Sunrise Senior Living, LLC and its defense counsel were in this case ten months prior to Defendants filing their motion for summary judgment, but Sunrise Senior Living, LLC did not conduct any discovery.  Plaintiff contends the reason for this motion is solely due to Defendants failure to diligently defense this action, and further contends that the request to specially set the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be denied because there is no evidence the motion was timely served. 

Defendants, in reply, assert that Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. has only been in the action for five months, and that discovery is ongoing with multiple depositions being set for September 2022.  Defendants aver they will be prejudiced if the trial is not continued.

As to the request for an order specially setting Defendants’ motion 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 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.  Although Plaintiff contends Defendants do not submit any evidence showing the motion was timely served, Plaintiff does not deny being served with the motion or otherwise articulate any reason service was improper.  Given the length of time until hearing on the motion, ample time remains for Plaintiff to prepare a response to the motion.  Furthermore, Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. has only been in the action approximately five months and the parties have not completed discovery in this matter, including the taking of multiple depositions.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.  However, given the length of the continuance that will be necessitated for Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to be heard prior to trial, the parties should expect no further continuances and should plan their case accordingly.

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted.  The November 9, 2022 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The October 26, 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:

• 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 16^th day of September 2022