Judge: Audra Mori, Case: BC690185, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC690185    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Linda Hammel (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Stink Inc. dba the Stinking Rose (“Defendant”) for injuries relating to Plaintiff’s trip and fall on stairs located at Defendant’s restaurant.  The complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and premises liability.  Trial is currently set for March 14, 2023. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date to June 2023 and to advance the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which is set for hearing on June 30, 2023, to April 2023.  The motion is unopposed. 

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 the parties have agreed to schedule mediation for March 21, 2023, the first available date for their selected mediator.  Additionally, Defendant asserts that it scheduled its motion for summary judgment for June 30, 2023, which was the first available date on the Court’s calendar.  Defendant filed and served its motion for summary judgment on October 5, 2022.  Further, Defendant provides the parties have voluntarily stipulated to extend the five-year deadline to bring this action to trial to January 13, 2023.  (Mot. Exh. C.)  On December 23, 2022, the parties submitted a proposed stipulation stipulating to the trial date being continued to June 2023 and to advancing the hearing on the summary judgment motion to April 2023. 

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. 

However, 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.”  (Id., at p. 530.)

 In this case, Defendant timely filed its motion for summary judgment, but Defendant’s inability to have the motion heard is due to the court’s calendar.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.  Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will remain set for June 30, 2023, and the Court will continue trial to a date at least 30 days after the June 30, 2023 hearing.  Because the parties have stipulated to extend the five-year deadline to bring this matter to trial to January 13, 2024, this order will not impact the deadline.[1]  Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The March 14, 2023 trial date is continued to October 5, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The February 28, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to September 21, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.  There will be no further continuances. The parties are put on clear notice of this and are expected to plan accordingly.

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 5^th day of January 2023