Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 19STCV24611, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 19STCV24611    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Glenn Solomon (“Glenn”), Matthew Solomon, and Marion Solomon (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)[1]

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  On July 25, 2022, Moving Defendants filed a motion to continue the trial date (the “Motion”) from its currently-scheduled April 24, 2023 start date. 

DISCUSSION

California Rules of Court (“CRC”), rule 3.1332(a) provides that trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases.  (CRC, r. 3.1332(a).)  Continuances are thus generally disfavored.  (CRC, r. 3.1332(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.  (CRC, r. 3.1332(c).)  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.  (Id.)

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.  (CRC, r. 3.1332(d).) 

In support of the Motion, Moving Defendants provide evidence that Moving Defendants and Plaintiffs previously stipulated to continue the trial to February 20, 2023.  (Declaration of Patrick J. McCormick (“McCormick Decl.” ¶ 2.)  Plaintiffs thereafter filed an ex parte application to seek the continuance with the Court.  (McCormick Decl. ¶ 3, Exhibit A.)  On June 27, 2022, the Court granted the ex parte application without hearing oral argument and set April 24, 2023 as the new start date.  (McCormick Decl. ¶ 4.)  After the June 27, 2022 hearing, Moving Defendants’ counsel learned that Glenn, who is an attorney, is scheduled to appear as lead counsel in a two week trial in Mississippi on April 24, 2023.  (McCormick Decl. ¶ 5.)  Glenn has other trials and arbitrations scheduled through mid-October 2023.  (Id.)

            The Court finds that the Motion does not set forth sufficient facts to justify the length of the continuance requested by Moving Defendants.  The Motion does not provide information about the length of Glenn’s scheduled trials and arbitrations other than the two-week trial in Mississippi and the Court is unable to determine the impact these commitments have on Moving Defendants’ ability to participate in the trial in this matter late in 2023. This case was filed over three years ago, and as trial is currently scheduled, it will be almost four years after filing that the matter will be tried.  The moving papers do not indicate how old the other cases in which Glenn is involved are and the attitude of the other courts towards continuances.  This Court understands that many civil cases settle before trial, such that trial dates as far off as Glenn’s other case will not necessarily result in a conflict. 

At the hearing on this motion, the Court will also discuss the possibility of mediation or other dispute resolution being pursued in light of the time until trial as currently set.

            The Court therefore DENIES the Motion without prejudice.      

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

  Dated this 18th day of August 2022