Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV39180, Date: 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39180    Hearing Date: January 25, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Lori Luna (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants First Field Farm, LLC, Carolyn Biava and Rose Heida (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries Plaintiff sustained while taking horse riding lessons from Defendants.  Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff was matched with a horse that was known to get spooked, which did in fact get spooked while Plaintiff was riding it, and this caused Plaintiff to fell off the horse.  Trial is currently set for April 24, 2023. 

Defendants now move to continue the current trial date to a date at least 30 days after the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which Defendants have reserved for November 15, 2023.  Alternatively, Defendants request that the hearing date for its summary judgment motion be specially set for before trial.    

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, Defendants assert that on September 29, 2022, they reserved a motion for summary judgment hearing date, which was the earliest available hearing date but is seven months after the current trial date.  Defendants, thus, seek to continue the trial date to allow their motion for summary judgment to be heard, or to specially set Defendants’ motion for hearing.  They argue that they will suffer great prejudice if their motion for summary judgment cannot be heard.

As to the request to specially set the hearing date for Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, 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 specially set the hearing date based on the current trial is denied. 

As to the request to continue the trial date, Defendants are correct that a trial court cannot refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of CCP § 437c.  (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918. 919.)  However, to date, Defendants have not filed a motion for summary judgment in this matter.  (Cole v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2022) 2022 WL 17999483 at *2 [“But the fact remains that the motion was timely filed, and calendaring issues are not a basis on which the trial court can refuse to hear a timely filed summary judgment motion, absent an indication that it was defective under section 437c.” (Emphasis Added.)].)  Nonetheless, the relevant factors weigh in favor of granting a trial continuance.  Defendants are making this motion almost three months before the current trial date, as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial, and there have been no prior trial continuances.  Further, there are no alternative means identified to address these issues, and there is otherwise no prejudice shown to Plaintiff if the trial is continued. 

The motion is unopposed, and Defendants establish good cause for the continuance.  

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted.  The April 24, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The April 10, 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. 

Defendants are 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 25^th day of January 2023