Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV14223, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14223    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Hallie Waltuch (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Rotem Null Eylor (“Defendant”) for injuries relating to an alleged dog attack incident.  Trial is currently set for October 12, 2022. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date to a date after September 7, 2023.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant 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, Defendant avers a continuance is necessary because after attempting to mediate the case on July 27, 2022, Defendant reserved the earliest available hearing date of September 7, 2023, for his motion for summary judgment.  Defendant asserts this is the first continuance requested by any party, and that defense counsel will be engaged in another trial during the current trial date. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she would be denied due process if the Court shortens the required notice period mandated by CCP § 437c for a motion for summary judgment, and that Defendant does not establish good cause for a trial continuance.  Further, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has not yet filed his motion for summary judgment, and that Defendant delayed in reserving and filing a motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff contends she will be prejudiced if the trial date is continued. 

In reply, Defendant asserts that it was not apparent to defense counsel, who inherited the case on July 1, 2022, to reserve a motion for summary judgment when a mediation date had been scheduled for July 21, 2022.  Defendant attests that after the case was not settled in mediation, Defendant reserved the earliest hearing date for his motion for summary judgment. 

Here, the factors assessed in determining whether to continue trial weigh in favor of a continuance.  Defendant has made a noticed motion to continue trial in advance of the October trial date, rather than waiting until the eve of trial.  There have not been any previous continuances of trial due to any party.  Although the continuance requested is significant, this is due to the court’s impacted calendar.  As suggested in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 919, delay caused by the court’s calendar should not prevent a party from bringing a motion for summary judgment.  The alternative of advancing the motion for summary judgment to be heard before the current trial date is not viable because, as Plaintiff argues, Plaintiff needs time to adequately respond to such a motion.  Moreover, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, Defendant properly seeks to continue trial instead of seeking to specially set the hearing date.   Although Plaintiff contends she will be severely prejudiced if the continuance is granted, she does not articulate or identify any prejudice other than that inherent in the continuance itself.  Finally, defense counsel asserts that he will be engaged in another trial during the current trial date.   

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The October 12, 2022, trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The September 28, 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.  Given the length of the continuance that will be granted, the Court will not be inclined to grant other further continuances in this matter. 

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 26^th day of August 2022