Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff WW Westwood, L.P. 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Ebi Nikjoo D.D.S. 

 

BACKGROUND 

This action arises from a landlord-tenant dispute.  Plaintiff WW Westwood, L.P. owns the property located at 10921 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles California.  Defendant Ebi Nikjoo D.D.S. leases Suite 601 of the property pursuant to a written lease agreement (the “Lease”).  Tenant was required to pay monthly Base Rent and Additional Rent, as those terms are defined in the Lease.  Tenant has failed to pay any such rent for nearly three years, from April 2020 through present.     

This hearing is on Landlord’s motion for continuance of trial.  Trial is currently set for April 24, 2023.  Landlord seeks a 90 day continuance to allow Landlord time to file a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication which Landlord contends did not become ripe until the County of Los Angeles’ commercial tenant protections expired on January 31, 2023.  Landlord seeks a three month continuance to allow for the statutorily required 75 day notice for filing a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication.   

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Landlord requests judicial notice of (1) County of Los Angeles’ Resolution of the Board of Supervisors Further Amending and Restating of the County of Los Angeles Covid-19 Tenant Protections Resolution, dated January 24, 2023 and (2) City of Los Angeles Ordinance No. 187736 published on January 27, 2023.  The Court grants the request pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code section 452 subdv. (b) and (c). 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).)  Continuances are thus generally disfavored.  (See id., rule 3.1332, subd. (b).)  Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates.  (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.)  Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.)   

Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) the addition of a new party if (A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or (B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case; (6) a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c).)  

The court must also consider such relevant factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by 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 or application for a continuance; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) if the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) the court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (d).) 

DISCUSSION 

The Court finds good cause to grant a short trial continuance based on “a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c).)  The Court also finds that the “interests of justice are best served by a continuance.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 subd. (d).) 

This is the first request for continuance, and there is no evidence the continuance is being sought solely to delay a trial or as Tenant contends “to rack up additional attorney’s fees.”  Landlord’s basis for filing a motion for summary judgment or adjudication did not become ripe until the County of Los Angeles allowed all commercial tenant protections to lapse by January 31, 2023.  As there may no longer be a triable issue of material fact on Defendant’s COVID-based affirmative defenses, this matter may be more efficiently resolved via a motion for summary judgment or in the alternative that several of Defendant’s affirmative defenses may be eliminated through summary adjudication, thereby streamlining the issues to be tried.  (Ramos-Lucatero v. Odonnell, 2020 Cal. Super. LEXIS 42260 at *7 (granting trial continuance on own motion to allow party time to file summary judgment motion); Inco Commer. Realty v. C & B Towing, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 42230 at *1 (continuing trial to allow for summary judgment motion to be filed with the statutorily required 75 day notice period).) 

Tenant argues there has been no significant change because it is still protected by the Moratorium pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code section 49.99.3.  But that provision prohibits only commercial evictions, and does not prohibit the filing of a breach of lease action to recover unpaid rent.   

Tenant also argues it will be prejudiced by a continuance as its counsel plans to take a leave of absence for a “significant period of time resulting in [Tenant] being forced to spend thousands of dollars finding new counsel at the last minute.”  Tenant does not specify the time period or length of counsel’s leave, and accordingly, whether counsel’s schedule may be accommodated in the setting of a new trial date.  The Court concludes Tenant’s assertion of prejudice is too vague to support a denial of the motion to continue trial.           

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff WW Westwood L.P.’s motion for a trial continuance.   Trial is continued to July 24, 2023, with the final status conference to be held on July 14, 2023.      

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: March 7, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court