Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV39112, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV39112    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Lynn A. Ibarra (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Brookfield Asset Management, et al. asserting a single cause of action premises liability.  Trial is currently set for April 6, 2023. 

Defendants Brookfield Properties Management, (CA) Inc., erroneously sued and served as Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Properties Retail, Inc. and Brookfield Properties Management, LLC., and EYP Realty, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) now move to continue the current trial date to a date at least 30 days after Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is heard, which is currently set for hearing for January 11, 2024.  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 timely filed and served their motion for summary judgment on December 15, 2022, but the first available hearing date for the motion was January 11, 2024, after the current trial date.  Defendants contend they will suffer irreparable harm if the trial date is not continued because they will be deprived of their right to have their summary judgment motion heard. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants delayed in filing their motion for summary judgment, and that Defendants do not establish good cause for continuing any trial related dates.  Plaintiff argues that Defendants should not benefit from their delay, and Plaintiff asserts that Defendants should be required to make the people who signed declarations in support of Defendants’ summary judgment motion available for deposition on shortened notice. 

In reply, Defendants contend that their alleged lack of diligence, which Defendants dispute, is not relevant to continuing the trial date so that their motion for summary judgment can be heard. 

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 Defendants’ inability to have the motion heard is due to the Court’s calendar.  There are no alternative means identified to address this issue.  Moreover, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Defendants properly seek to continue the trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date for their motion for summary judgment.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.  As to Plaintiff’s contentions regarding continuing the trial related dates, Plaintiff herself indicates that additional time is required for her to depose those that submitted declarations in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Consequently, the Court will continue the trial related dates to ensure that Plaintiff has sufficient time to depose witnesses and conduct discovery Plaintiff determines is necessary to opposing the summary judgment motion.  No orders allowing depositions to be done on shortened notice will be issued at this time.   

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted.  The April 6, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The March 23, 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.  Given the length of the continuance that will be necessitated, the parties must expect no further continuances.  They must plan all motion and discovery practice accordingly. 

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 6^th day of February 2023