Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV26756, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26756    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Pacific City Bank’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED as to LASC Case No. 21STCV26756, and DENIED as to 20STCV17040.

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

“In passing on the motion for a continuance, which rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of the trial court, the trial judge may inquire into the merits of the defense, pass on any questions presented as to any possible prejudice to either of the parties which would result from granting or denying the motion, and determine whether there is good cause therefor.” (Schwartz v. Magyar House, Inc. (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 182, 188–89.)

In evaluating a request for continuance, the court should consider:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay 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 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.

(CRC Rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Pacific City Bank (Pacific) seeks a continuance of trial in the present action (LASC Case No. 21STCV26756) and the related case 20STCV17040, Ultimate Action v. the November First Partnership, LASC Case No. 20STCV17040. Pacific argues that a continuance is warranted because discovery in this matter was stayed during the pendency of Plaintiff Ultimate Action, LLC’s rejected anti-SLAPP motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, subd. (g), and that all proceedings as to itself have further been stayed by Plaintiff’s appeal of this court’s order denying that motion.(Motion at pp. 10–12, citing Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189 [“[T]he perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order.”].)[1] Given that Pacific’s responsive brief is due on October 4, 2023, Pacific argues that the appellate court is unlikely to rule upon or issue a remittitur within the time currently set for trial in both actions — both now set for March 26, 2024 — as appellate briefing is not scheduled to conclude until December 2023, and that a continuance is necessary both to accommodate the appellate stay, and to permit Pacific to conduct discovery that it has been prevented from obtaining since Plaintiff filed its anti-SLAPP motion on June 1, 2022. Thus Pacific seeks a one-year continuance of trial in both actions.

Plaintiff in opposition does not contest Pacific’s request for a continuance in the present action, LASC Case No. 21STCV26756. (Opposition at p. 4.) However, Plaintiff argues that Pacific cannot seek a continuance in the related case of LASC Case No. 20STCV17040, as Pacific is not a party to that action. “It is elementary that a stranger to a proceeding has no standing to interpose a motion.” (Beshara v. Goldberg (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 392, 395.)

Defendant 357 South Broadway, LLC, meanwhile, argues that no continuance should be granted, because the maturity date on its loan from Pacific is July 26, 2024, and granting the one-year continuance that Pacific seeks would force Defendant into default on the loan. (Opposition at p. 3.)

Two results are warranted from the showings made by the parties. First, Pacific may seek no continuance of the trial date in the action numbered 20STCV17040, to which it is not a party. (Beshara, supra, 221 Cal.App.2d at p. 395.) Pacific argues that judicial efficiency favors trying these cases together, since the earlier-filed action, like the present one, addresses the authority of the Defendant November First Partnership to act for the Company. (Reply at p. 4.) But Pacific presents no authority for the proposition that it has standing to seek a continuance on that case.

However, a continuance of trial is warranted as to the present action, numbered 21STCV26756, as resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal is unlikely to occur prior to the date currently set for trial, and it would therefore be impossible to resolve Plaintiff’s and Pacific’s claims at the date currently set for trial. Plaintiff does not oppose the stay in this regard, and although Defendant 357 argues that it will have defaulted on its loan with Pacific by that time, its opposition does not mention the appeal or the stay entered on all proceedings affected thereby.

The motion for continuance is GRANTED as to LASC Case No. 21STCV26756, and DENIED as to 20STCV17040.