Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV38845, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38845    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Lawrence Jefferson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Smart & Final LLC, Smart & Final Stores LLC, Smart & Final Stores Corporation; Devonshire Reseda LLC, and David Grajalez for injuries relating to a slip and fall in defendants’ store.  Trial is currently set for January 20, 2023.    

Defendants Smart & Final Stores LLC, Devonshire Reseda LLC, and David Grajalez (collectively, “Defendants”) now move to continue the current trial date to a date after May 28, 2023, so that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which is set for April 28, 2023, can be heard prior to trial.  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 assert they filed their motion for summary judgment on April 18, 2022, but the first available hearing date was not until April 28, 2023, after the current trial date.  Defendants seek to continue the trial date until after the hearing on their summary judgment motion.  Defendants aver that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the continuance, but Defendants will be if they are not permitted to have their motion heard prior to trial. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants created their own exigency by waiting until essentially the last minute to set the motion for summary judgment for hearing and that Defendants fail to show good cause for the continuance.  Plaintiff contends that Defendants do not show irreparable harm because they can present their arguments in the motion for summary judgment in the form of a motion for nonsuit or motion for directed at trial. 

            In reply, Defendants aver there is good cause for the continuance because they did not delay in filing their motion for summary judgment.  Further, Defendants contend that relying on a motion for nonsuit or directed verdict will not alleviate the prejudice to Defendants from the deprivation of having their summary judgment motion heard prior to trial. 

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 more than one year before its hearing date, but Defendants’ inability to have the motion heard is due to the Court’s calendar.  Moreover, Plaintiff cites no authority holding that a party’s ability to move for nonsuit or directed verdict at trial alleviates the prejudice to a party in not having its motion for summary judgment heard prior to trial, which would possibly spare the party from having to prepare and appear for trial if granted.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.  Furthermore, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Defendants properly seek to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date.

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted.  The January 20, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The January 6, 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. 

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 24^th day of October 2022