Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV28391, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28391    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Aram Keledjian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Burbank (“Defendant”) for injuries relating to a trip and fall.  Plaintiff alleges he was injured when he inadvertently stepped on an uneven and deformed portion of asphalt on the street.  Trial is currently set for January 30, 2023.   

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date to October 2, 2023, to allow Defendant to file a motion for summary judgment.  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 seeks to continue the trial date so that Defendant can file a motion for summary judgment.  Defendant asserts it recently confirmed a motion for summary judgment was proper and attempted to obtain a hearing in 2022, but the first available hearing date was August 10, 2023, which Defendant reserved.  Defendant contends it will be deprived of its right to bring a summary judgment motion if the trial date is not continued.  Further, Defendant asserts that this action was only filed just over one year ago, that this is the first trial continuance requested in this matter, and that no party will be prejudiced by the proposed continuance. 

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant was dilatory in completing discovery, and that although Plaintiff proposed stipulating to continue the trial date to April 30, 2023, Defendant did not agree.  Plaintiff contends that earlier hearing dates for a motion for summary judgment were available and that Defendant fails to provide good cause for a nine-month continuance. 

Defendant, in reply, asserts it will be prejudiced if it is unable to file a motion for summary judgment due to a lack of hearing dates.  Defendant avers that it completed the necessary investigation to confirm in good faith that it should file a motion for summary judgment in August 2023.  Defendant contends that it has not delayed in completing discovery and its investigation and that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any prejudice he would suffer as a result of the continuance. 

In weighing the relevant factors, Defendant establishes good cause for the continuance.  Defendant is making this motion more than three months before the current trial date, and there have been no prior trial continuances in this matter.  Further, the length of the continuance requested is based on the hearing date Defendant was able to reserve for a motion for summary judgment given the Court’s calendar, and there are no alternative means to address this issue.  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 the motion.  While Plaintiff contends he will be prejudiced by the continuance, the only prejudice Plaintiff identifies is that inherent in the continuance itself- that is, that Plaintiff will have to wait additional time for the trial.  To the extent that Plaintiff argues that Defendant seeks “time to file a second MSJ,” the Court’s records show that Defendant did not previously file a motion for summary judgment.  Furthermore, Plaintiff’s proposed April 30, 2023 trial date would not address Defendant’s inability to have a motion for summary judgment heard prior to trial.  Lastly, Plaintiff states that on September 28, 2022, he checked the Court’s Reservation System and found hearing dates available for motions for summary judgment for October 31, November 15, and November 18, 2022.  However, as Defendant asserts, none of these hearing dates would have complied with the statutorily required 75-day notice period.   

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The January 30, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The January 17, 2023 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 13^th day of October 2022