Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV19866, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19866    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Dennis Adkins (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Albertson’s, Inc. (“Defendant”) for injuries relating to Plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall at defendant’s store.  Trial is currently set for November 23, 2022. 

Defendant Albertson’s, LLC (“Defendant”) now moves to continue the current trial date to September 18, 2023, or a date thereafter, so that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment can be heard prior to trial.  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 attests that it scheduled its motion for summary judgment to be heard on August 17, 2023, which was the earliest available hearing date on the Court’s calendar.  Defendant avers that the parties have exchanged written discovery and that Plaintiff’s deposition has been taken, and Defendant has determined that a motion for summary judgment is appropriate.  Defendant contends it will be prejudiced if it is denied the opportunity to have a summary judgment motion heard, and Defendant argues there are no alternative means to address this issue. 

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’s inability to have a motion for summary judgment heard before trial is due to the court’s calendar.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.  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 for summary judgment. 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The November 23, 2022 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The November 9, 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 7^th day of September 2022