Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV05519, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05519    Hearing Date: January 4, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Raul Cabrera (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants GMCND, Inc. dba La Placita Market (“Defendants”) for injuries Plaintiff sustained when he was allegedly attacked at Defendant’s premises.  Trial is currently set for February 15, 2023. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date to November 6, 2023, or a date thereafter to allow Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which is currently set for hearing on October 6, 2023, to be heard prior to trial.  Alternatively, Defendant requests the hearing on its summary judgment motion be specially set within 30 days of the current trial date.  The motion is unopposed. 

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 provides that it is entitled to summary judgment on the claims against it based on the lack of foreseeability that another customer was going to attack Plaintiff at the time of the incident.  Defendant asserts that as soon as it determined the basis for the summary judgment motion, it scheduled the motion for summary judgment for hearing on October 6, 2023, which was the earliest available hearing date.  Further, Defendant states it already filed and served its motion for summary judgment on October 21, 2022. 

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. 

As to the request to continue the trial date, 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 timely filed its motion for summary judgment, but Defendant’s inability to have the motion heard before trial 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 February 15, 2023 trial date is continued to November 6, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The February 1, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to October 23, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

Moving 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 4^th day of January 2023