Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: BC716561, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC716561 Hearing Date: December 16, 2022 Dept: 28
Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Motion to Continue Trial
Having considered the moving and supplemental papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 27, 2019, Plaintiff Jessy Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”) and County of Los Angeles (“County”) for dangerous condition of public property, premises liability and negligence.
On November 18, 2019, the City filed an answer.
On November 22, 2022, the City filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on December 16, 2022. On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 20, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
The City requests the Court continue trial to allow the MSJ scheduled for August 2, 2023, to be heard.
Plaintiff requests that, should the Court grant the motion, it continue trial to September or November.
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
The City requests the Court continue trial so that the Court may hear their MSJ, which is scheduled for after the current trial date. The City has yet to serve or file the moving papers for the MSJ, scheduled for August 2, 2023. In order for a MSJ to be heard prior to trial, it must be heard at least 30 days before trial and served at least 75 days prior to the hearing date. Based on the current trial date of March 6, 2023, the City needed to have filed the MSJ November 23, 2022. As the City has not filed an MSJ, it has no right to do so now. Accordingly, there is no good cause for a trial continuance.
The City also makes this request on the basis that parties need to complete additional depositions. Trial is still months away. There is ample time for the City to conduct discovery prior to trial. The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
Defendant City of Los Angeles’ 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.