Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV05624, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05624    Hearing Date: August 18, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Group IX BP Properties, LP; Group IX BP Properties, Inc.; Pama Management, Inc.; Golden Management Services Inc.; Swaranjit S. Nijjar; and Daljit K. Kler (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

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

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an alleged public nuisance caused by gang-related activity at an apartment complex located in North Hollywood.  On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) which alleges: (1) public nuisance; and (2) unfair competition.[1]

On July 25, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a motion to continue the trial date (the “Motion”).  The Motion requests that the Court continue the trial from October 31, 2023 to April 29, 2024.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            Moving Defendants’ evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

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).) 

            Moving Defendants argue that the trial should be continued in order to allow them to potentially respond to the allegations included in the FAC and respond to the discovery that Plaintiff propounded after it filed the FAC.  In support of the Motion, Moving Defendants provide evidence of the discovery propounded by Plaintiff after the FAC was filed.  (See generally Declaration of Jerry A Behnke.)  Moving Defendants do not, however, provide evidence regarding the burdens imposed by the additional discovery on their ability to prepare for the currently scheduled October 31, 2023 trial date or evidence that they intend to file a motion for summary judgment or adjudication.  Nor do Moving Defendants provide evidence or why there is good cause to grant a six-month trial continuance.  Further, Plaintiff provides evidence that is willing to stipulate to a 70-day continuance to address Moving Defendants’ concerns.  (See Declaration of Rahi Azizi ¶ 5, Exhibit 14.)

            Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Moving Defendants have not shown good cause to continue the trial.  The Court therefore DENIES the Motion; however, in light of Plaintiff’s stipulation, the Court on its own motion advances the current Final Status Conference (“FSC”) and trial dates and continues the FSC to December 26, 2023 at 8:30 am and continues the trial to January 9, 2024 at 9:30 am.  All pre-trial deadlines shall be re-set based on the new trial date. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

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 2023