Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV40110, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40110    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Jean McDade (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Hong Holdings, LLC, et al. for injuries relating to Plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall on defendant’s premises.  Trial is currently set for May 1, 2023.

Defendant Hong Holdings, LLC dba Conico Management (“Defendant”) currently has a motion for summary judgment set for hearing on August 3, 2023.  Defendant now moves to specially set the hearing date for the summary judgment motion for March 31, 2023.  Alternatively, Defendant requests the current trial date be continued to September 4, 2023, or a date thereafter, to allow Defendant’s motion to be heard prior to trial.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant filed a reply.[1] 

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 asserts that it timely filed and served its motion for summary judgment on December 29, 2022, but the first available hearing date was August 3, 2023, after the current trial date.  Defendant, thus, requests the hearing on the motion for summary judgment be specially set for March 31, 2023, or that the trial date be continued to accommodate the current hearing date for Defendant’s summary judgment motion.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced from allowing the motion to be heard prior to trial. 

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant delayed in filing the motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff contends that specially setting the motion for summary judgment to be heard closer to the current trial date will prejudice Plaintiff in preparing an opposition, and Plaintiff argues that there is not good cause to continue the trial date. 

In reply, Defendant argues that the motion for summary judgment was timely filed, but Defendant was unable to reserve a hearing date based on the current trial date.  Defendant contends that it cannot be denied its right to have its motion for summary judgment heard, and that there is good cause to continue the trial date. 

As to Defendant’s request to advance the hearing date, 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 advance the hearing date is therefore denied. 

As to the request to continue the trial date, 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.”  (Sentry Ins. Co., 207 Cal.App.3d at 530.)

In this case, although Plaintiff contends that Defendant could have filed its motion for summary judgment sooner, the evidence shows that Defendant timely filed its motion for summary judgment, but Defendant’s inability to have the motion heard is due to the Court’s calendar.  While Plaintiff contends that this does not constitute good cause for continuing the trial date, Plaintiff does not address any of the authority cited by Defendant holding that a trial court cannot refuse to hear a timely filed summary judgment motion.  (See e.g., Sentry Ins. Co., 207 Cal.App.3d at 529-30.)  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date to allow Defendant’s motion for summary judgment to be heard before trial.  (Cole v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2022) 303 Cal.Rptr.3d 296, 299 [“Because petitioners' motion for summary judgment was filed within the time limits set by section 437c, they have a right to have their motion heard before the start of trial.”].) 

The trial date will be continued to a date at least 30 days after August 3, 2023. 

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The May 1, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The April 17, 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. 

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 7^th day of February 2023