Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV16517, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16517    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Paymon Borbor (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Davco Air Conditioning, Inc., Armen Vardanyan, Alen Vardanyan, Glenoaks XC, LLC, and Xebec Building Company Inc. for injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained after falling from a platform while working on the rebuild of a warehouse.  Trial is currently set for March 22, 2023. 

Defendant Davco Air Conditioning, Inc. (“Defendant”) now moves to continue the current trial date to at least 30 days after October 2, 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 provides that it intends to file a motion for summary judgment, but the first available hearing date for such a motion was October 2, 2023, after the current trial date.  Defendant seeks a continuance to allow the motion to be heard prior to trial.  Defendant argues that there are no alternative means to address this issue, and that no party will be prejudiced if the motion is granted. 

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that there have been two prior trial continuances, and that Defendant does not establish good cause for its delay in bringing a summary judgment motion.  Plaintiff argues that a third trial continuance will prejudice Plaintiff. 

In reply, Defendant asserts that there has only been one prior trial continuance in this action, and that the fact that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment cannot be heard prior to trial constitutes good cause to continue the trial date.  Further, Defendant contends that Plaintiff delayed in filing this action and serving Defendant with the complaint, such that Defendant had only seven months to complete discovery and bring a summary judgment motion.  Defendant avers it scheduled a motion for summary judgment for hearing as soon as it determined a summary judgment motion was proper, but the only available hearing date was for after the current trial date. 

            In considering the relevant factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted, there is good cause for a continuance.  Unlike Plaintiff argues, the Court’s records show that there has been only one prior trial continuance in this matter.  Defendant is seeking the trial continuance more than three months before the current trial date, as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial to make the request, and no alternative means are identified to address the above issues.  Additionally, Defendant filed its answer to the complaint on May 9, 2022, and Plaintiff does not identify any specific prejudice he will suffer if the trial date is continued.  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 for its motion. 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The March 22, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The March 8, 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.  The parties must expect no further continuances.  They should plan all discovery and motion practice accordingly, and both the Complaint and Cross-Complaint in this matter should be pursued with diligence.  It is noted that the Cross-Complaint filed on May 9, 2023, names only Roe Defendants and has not been served.    

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 15^th day of December 2022