Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV47101, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47101    Hearing Date: February 24, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant GA Development-Sherman Oaks Holdings LLC’s Motion to Continue Trial

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff Kenneth Hergenroeder (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), GA Development-Sherman Oaks Holdings LLC (“GA”) and Joseph Frank Montagna (“Joseph”) for negligence (statutory liability) and negligence. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Mary Montagna (“Mary”).

On February 16, 2021, the City filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant County, GA and Joseph for indemnification, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief.

On February 23, 2021, GA filed an answer. On March 4, 2021, the County filed an answer. On June 29, 2021, the Court dismissed the County, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On January 19, 2023, GA filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on February 24, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for August 4, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

GA requests the Court continue trial to January 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

CRC rule 3.1332(b) outlines that “a party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

Under CRC 3.1332(c), The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts,” or the unavailability of a party, counsel, or expert due to death, illness or other excusable circumstance. The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. CRC 3.1332(d).

DISCUSSION

GA requests the Court continue trial to give GA time to both file a Cross-Complaint against a new Cross-Defendants, Best Buy, and also file a Motion for Summary Adjudication. The motion for leave to file the cross-complaint is currently set for April 26, 2023—the MSA has not been filed, as Best Buy is not currently a party to this case.

The Court will not grant a continuance at this time. The Court has yet to grant leave to file the Cross-Complaint against Best Buy; it is premature to grant a continuance based on a MSA to be filed against a party that has not even been named in the case. The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant GA Development-Sherman Oaks Holdings LLC’s Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.