Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV15280 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV15280, Date: 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15280 Hearing Date: March 10, 2023 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

March 10, 2023

21STCV15280

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Reading International, Inc.

DECISION

Unserved Defendant Reading Cinemas is dismissed with prejudice. If Plaintiff objects to the dismissal, Plaintiff should raise the issue at the hearing.

The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Trial is continued to July 10, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

The FSC is continued to June 26, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.

The fact discovery cutoff date is to comport with the May 9, 2023 trial date.

The expert discovery cutoff date and the expert exchange date are to comport with the July 10, 2023 trial date.

All motion cutoffs dates are to comport with the May 9, 2023 trial date, except for (1) expert discovery motions and (2) motions in limine.

The parties are ordered to mediate on May 8, 2023, as scheduled, since that is one of the stated reasons as to the need for a continuance.

The parties should not anticipate any further trial continuances. The July 10, 2023 trial date is firm and the parties must be prepared and ready to proceed with trial on said date.

NOTE: To understand the
Procedures in the Personal Injury (PI) Courts, Counsel are directed to
carefully review the Los Angeles Superior Court's " Eighth
Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts
(Effective October 10, 2022)” available on the Court's website:
[www.lacourt.org PI Courts link)(Eighth Amended Standing Order Re: Personal
Injury Procedures – Central District].

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

Background

This is an action for negligence and premises liability arising from a slip and fall incident which took place in June 2019. Plaintiff Heather Malvin filed her Complaint against Defendants Reading International and Reading Cinemas on April 22, 2021.

Plaintiff served Reading International on May 25, 2021. Reading International filed its answer July 14, 2021.

Defendant Reading International, Inc. (“Reading”) filed the instant motion to continue trial and all related dates on February 10, 2023.

Trial is set for May 9, 2023.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Reading argues good cause exists for a continuance because (1) the parties have reserved a mediation session for May 8, 2023 and (2) Reading intends to file a motion for summary judgment and reserved a hearing date on July 3, 2023, which was the earlies date available on the Court’s calendar.

Opposing Arguments

Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that Reading’s proposed motion for summary judgment is untimely. Plaintiff also argues that Reading could have inspected their own property earlier and filed a motion for summary judgment earlier. Plaintiff argues that there is no good cause for continuing trial past the time necessary for the parties to complete mediation.

Reply Arguments

Reading argues that it had postponed inspections and depositions to allow the parties to reach an informal resolution. In January 2023, Reading determined an informal resolution was not possible and completed additional discovery. Reading argues that regardless of whether it filed a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff would have had to incur expert fees and expend other resources to prepare for trial. Finally, Reading argues that it has a statutory right to file a motion for summary judgment and that its deadline to file has not passed.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[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.”

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” 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. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth more factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance:

(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.

“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c . . . [l]ocal rules and practices may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529, citing Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1989) 206 Cal.App.3d 918.)

Discussion

Reading seeks a continuance of trial and related dates to September 2023 on the grounds that the parties are scheduled to participate in mediation in May 2023. Additionally, Reading intends to file a motion for summary judgment and the earliest date for hearing was July 3, 2023 in the Court’s calendar.

The parties do not dispute that they have agreed to participate in mediation on May 8, 2023. The remaining issue is whether good cause exists for a continuance to allow Reading’s motion for summary judgment to be heard.

Reading’s counsel testifies that it attended an inspection of its premises on February 7, 2023, where it uncovered facts that would support a motion for summary judgment. (Nachiappan Decl., ¶4.) Reading then reserved the earliest date for a hearing on the motion, which was July 3, 2023. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that the parties agreed to stipulate to a continuance so that they could participate in mediation. (Rubin Decl., ¶¶12-13.) In January 2023, Plaintiff agreed to mediate in order to avoid further litigation expenses. (Id.) After discovering Reading intended to file a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff refused to stipulate to a longer continuance to September or October 2023 to allow Reading’s motion for summary judgment to be heard. (Id., ¶17.) If the motion to continue is granted, Plaintiff will have to incur additional litigation expenses to oppose the motion for summary judgment in advance of mediation. (Id., ¶21.) Plaintiff’s counsel argues that Reading had unfettered access to the premises prior to the February 2023 inspection. (Id.) On February 8, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Reading’s counsel that he would only agree to continue trial 60 days. (Id., ¶17.)

Trial is currently set for May 9, 2023. Reading’s deadline to file a motion for summary judgment is calculated based on this date. The deadline for Reading to file a motion for summary judgment was January 24, 2023. To date, Reading has not filed its motion. Moreover, Reading reserved the July 2023 hearing date for the motion in February 2023. Reading’s deadline to file a motion for summary judgment had already passed.

The evidence shows that Plaintiff did not anticipate that Reading would file a motion for summary judgment because the parties agreed to mediate one day before trial. The parties communicated about mediation on January 19, 2023, five days before Reading’s deadline to file a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff relied on the fact that mediation would allow Plaintiff to save litigation costs. It would be unfair now to allow Reading to continue trial to reopen its deadline to file a motion for summary judgment. Reading had ample opportunity to conduct their own inspection of their own premises. Reading also fails to explain what facts they discovered during the February 2023 inspection that would support a motion for summary judgment and why they did not discovery these facts earlier despite their exercise of due diligence. The Court thus does not find that good cause exists to continue trial to September 2023.