Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV30084, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30084    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Adam Newell (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Jeremy Asher Wizman, et al. for injuries Plaintiff sustained when a hydraulic door closer fell and struck Plaintiff’s head and neck.  Trial is currently set for December 5, 2022. 

Defendant Miliana, LLC (“Defendant”) now moves to continue the current trial date, so that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which is currently set for hearing on July 21, 2023, can be heard prior to trial.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant 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, Defendant asserts that the earliest available hearing date for its motion for summary judgment, which was filed on August 19, 2022, was September 29, 2023.[1]  Defendant contends that it will be severely prejudiced if the trial date is not continued because Defendant’s motion for summary judgment would not be heard prior to trial.  Further, Defendant asserts that Topline General Construction (“Topline”) only recently filed its answer on August 11, 2022, and that co-defendants Topline, Jeremy Asher Wizman, and BMJ Remodeling have indicated that they will stipulate to a trial continuance.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant delayed in scheduling its motion for summary judgment, as discovery has been completed in this matter.  Plaintiff argues that Defendant does not establish good cause for the continuance and contends that he will be prejudiced if the trial date is continued. 

Defendant, in reply, contends there is good cause to continue the trial date because its right to have its motion for summary judgment heard will be denied if the trial is not continued.  Additionally, Defendant asserts that discovery is not complete, and that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the continuance.   

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, Defendant timely filed its motion for summary judgment, but Defendant’s inability to have the motion heard is due to the Court’s calendar.  Further, Topline only recently filed its answer on August 11, 2022, and all parties should have an opportunity to conduct meaningful discovery.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.  Moreover, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Defendant properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date. 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The December 5, 2022 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The November 18, 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. 

Moving Defendant 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 29^th day of September 2022