Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV48043, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48043    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Roxsana Munoz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants California Hospital Medical Center and Cynthia Gutierrez, M.D. for damages relating to the alleged wrongful death of decedent Jose Munoz.  Trial is currently set for October 20, 2022.   

Defendant Cynthia Gutierrez, M.D. (“Defendant”) now moves to continue the current trial date to a date at least 30 days after May 15, 2023, which is the date currently set for Defendant’s motion for summary judgment to be heard.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  As of September 2, 2022, no reply has been received. 

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 she timely filed and served her motion for summary based on the current trial date, but the first available hearing for the motion was May 15, 2023, after the current trial date.  Defendant avers she will be prejudiced if this motion is not granted as Defendant will be denied the opportunity to have her motion for summary judgment heard prior to trial. 

Plaintiff opposes asserting that she will stipulate to the motion for summary judgment being heard on shortened notice on a date in 2022 but objects to continuing trial to after the current hearing date on Defendant’s summary judgment motion.  However, Defendant previously filed an ex parte application for an order specially setting the hearing date on the summary judgment motion, but the ex parte was denied without prejudice to Defendant moving to continue the trial.  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.  Accordingly, the Court cannot hear the motion on shortened notice. 

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 has timely filed her motion for summary judgment, but Defendant’s 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 granted.  The October 20, 2022 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The October 6, 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. 

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 8^th day of September 2022