Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV43439, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV43439    Hearing Date: February 28, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Albert Cohen (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Beverly Hills (“Defendant”) for damages Plaintiff sustained when he was riding his bicycle and ran into a pothole in the road that resulted in him crashing.  The First Amended Complaint alleges a single cause of action for dangerous condition of public property.  Trial is currently set for May 24, 2023. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date to April 29, 2024, or to a date thereafter so that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment can be heard prior to 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, Defendant provides that although it initially reserved an earlier hearing date for a motion for summary judgment, that date proved to be early because of the complexities and moving parts to this case.  Defendant asserts that in November 2022 it reserved a new hearing date for a motion for summary judgment, but the earliest available hearing date was January 10, 2024.  Defendant, thus, seeks to continue the trial date to April 29, 2024, so that its motion for summary judgment can be heard before trial. 

In response, Plaintiff provides that he understands that a defendant should be provided with the opportunity to file a motion for summary judgment and that he does not oppose the request to continue the trial date.  However, Plaintiff requests that as an alternative the summary judgment hearing date be advanced to June 2023 with the trial date being set for an appropriate date thereafter. 

As to Plaintiff’s request to advance the hearing date for Defendant’s summary judgment motion, 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 denied. 

As to Defendant’s request to continue the trial date, 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, Defendant has 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.  Defendant is 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 in this matter.  Further, there are no alternatives means identified to address the issues raised by Defendant, and Plaintiff does not otherwise oppose the continuance request or identify any prejudice that will result.  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 a motion for summary judgment.  However, given the length of the continuance that will be necessitated, the parties should expect no further continuances.  They must plan all motion and discovery practice accordingly. 

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

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 28^th day of February 2023