Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV31044, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31044    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Reginald Payne (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Sharon L. McGann (“McGann”), et al. for negligence and premises liability.  Plaintiff alleges that McGann is the homeowner of a residence where Plaintiff was working for Kingdom Maintenance Cleaning Services (“KMC”) as a window washer on June 27, 2019.  Plaintiff alleges that McGann retained KMC to wash the windows at the premises, and that upon Plaintiff arriving at the premises, McGann began instructing Plaintiff on how to perform his duties.  McGann allegedly instructed Plaintiff to wash certain windows located on the second floor of the residence, and specifically instructed Plaintiff to climb onto a patio structure or pergola with a ladder to ensure a thorough cleaning of the windows by hand, as opposed to using a water hose pole extender that would increase water usage and wet the homeowner’s deck.  Plaintiff climbed on top of the patio structure and stood where McGann instructed; however, as Plaintiff proceeded to take a step, the entire structure crumbled beneath his feet.  McGann has filed a cross-complaint against Ed Williams (“Williams”), et al. for complete and partial indemnity and declaratory relief alleging Plaintiff’s damages were caused by Williams.  Upon answering McGann’s cross-complaint, Williams filed a cross-complaint against McGann for indemnity and declaratory relief alleging that McGann was responsible for Plaintiff’s damages.

Trial is currently set for April 24, 2023.  Williams now moves to continue the current trial date to a date after July 24, 2023, convenient for the Court’s calendar.  No opposition to the motion has been filed.  On February 24, 2023, McGann’s counsel filed a declaration requesting the Court take into consideration that McGann’s counsel has no availability for trial in this action until early January 2024. 

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, Williams contends there is good cause to continue the trial date because Plaintiff and Williams have entered into a settlement agreement, and Williams has reserved a hearing date of May 18, 2023, for a motion for determination of good faith settlement, which was the earliest available hearing date for the motion.  Williams argues that there is no prejudice to any party by continuing the trial date to allow the motion to be heard prior to trial.  The motion is unopposed, and no alternative means are identified to address this issue.  Williams timely filed his motion for determination of good faith settlement, but Williams’s inability to have the motion heard is due to the Court’s calendar.  Moreover, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Williams now properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date for his motion.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.

Williams’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The April 24, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The April 11, 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. 

Moving Party Williams 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 9^th day of March 2023