Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV31079, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31079    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Clifton Hall (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Vidal Larios, Clancy’s Sports Bar, LLC, Guy Pearson, Deborah Pearson, D. Bagolus, LLC, and Ken Rossi for damages relating to an alleged attack of Plaintiff in the bathroom of a bar owned by Clancy’s Sports Bar, LLC, Guy Pearson, Deborah Pearson, D. Bagolus, LLC, and Ken Rossi.  Trial is currently set for June 13, 2023. 

Defendants Clancy’s Sports Bar, LLC, Guy Pearson, and Deborah Pearson (collectively, “Defendants”) now move to continue the current trial date to a date after Defendants’ motion for summary judgment hearing, which is set for January 16, 2024.  Alternatively, Defendants request that their motion for summary judgment be specially set for hearing for 30 days before the current trial date.  Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion to continue trial. 

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 filed and served their motion for summary judgment on August 19, 2022, originally setting it for hearing for January 17, 2023.  The parties then entered into a stipulation to continue the hearing on the summary judgment motion to a date on or after May 15, 2023, and the parties were instructed to use the Court Reservation System to choose a date for the summary judgment motion to be continued to.  Defendants continued their motion for summary judgment to January 16, 2024, which was the first available date for the motion to be heard. 

As to the request to advance the hearing date, 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 is denied.  The request to specially set the hearing date for Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied. 

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 timely filed their motion for summary judgment, but continued the hearing date at Plaintiff’s request.  Defendants obtained the first available hearing date, which was for after the current trial date.  Defendants’ inability to have the motion heard is due to the Court’s calendar.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is unopposed and granted.  The June 13, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The May 31, 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 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 February 2023