Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV44299, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44299    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On December 6, 2021, Plaintiff Nora Allen (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Gelson's Markets and Viktor Benes Continental Pastries, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages relating to Plaintiff’s slip and fall in Defendants’ store.  Trial is currently set for June 5, 2023. 

At this time, Defendants move to advance the hearing date on their motion for summary judgment, which is currently set for hearing on November 9, 2023, or to continue the current trial date to a date at least 30 days after the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff opposes the motion. 

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 they timely filed and served their motion for summary judgment on September 28, 2022, but Defendants were only able to obtain a hearing date for November 9, 2023, which is after the current trial date.  Defendants, thus, seek to advance the hearing date on their motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, to continue the current trial date to allow the motion to be heard.  Defendants contend they will be prejudiced if the motion for summary judgment is not heard before trial. 

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that she does not oppose the request to advance the hearing date on the summary judgment motion, but Plaintiff contends that Defendants do not establish good cause to continue the trial date.  Plaintiff contends that Defendants delayed in filing their motion for summary judgment. 

As to the 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 denied. 

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, Defendants timely filed their motion for summary judgment, but Defendants’ inability to have the motion heard is due to the court’s calendar.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted.  The June 5, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The May 22, 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 13^th day of December 2022