Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV07948, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV07948, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07948 Hearing Date: September 28, 2023 Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE: September 28, 2023 TRIAL DATE: November 16, 2023

CASE: Gabriela Sabet-Baktash v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV07948

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Adam Kligfeld and Havid Kligfeld

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Gabriela Sabet-Baktash

I. BACKGROUND

On March 1, 2021, Plaintiff, Gabriela Sabet-Baktash, initiated this action against Defendants, City of Los Angeles, Adam Kligfeld, and Havid Kligfeld, for injuries arising from a trip and fall on a sidewalk adjacent to 6601 Lindenhurst Avenue, Los Angeles, California. Adam Kligfeld and Havid Kligfeld are the owners of the property at 6601 Lindenhurst Avenue.

On August 31, 2023, Adam Kligfeld and Havid Kligfeld (hereafter, “Defendants”) filed this motion to continue the trial date and all trial-related dates so that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be heard before trial. Defendants’ summary judgment motion is scheduled for February 22, 2024. This is the third request for a trial continuance.

Plaintiff opposes and Defendants reply.

II. LEGAL STANDARD TO CONTINUE TRIAL

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b) outlines that “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.”

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c), the Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)

Deadlines for Summary Judgment Motion

Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c requires a Motion for Summary Judgment be made any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action.¿ The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before trial, unless the Court, for good cause, orders otherwise.¿ Parties must serve notice of the motion and all supporting papers at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.¿

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants argue good cause exists to continue the trial date because after determining on November 16, 2022 that they had a meritorious summary judgment motion, Defendants reserved the earliest available hearing date for the motion. The motion is scheduled to be heard on February 22, 2024. (Declaration of Jamie Shepherd.) Trial is currently scheduled for November 16, 2023. For this reason, Defendants request a trial continuance to March 25, 2024, or the next available date thereafter. Defendants also request all trial related dates to correspond to the new trial date.

Plaintiff argues the motion should be denied because Defendants have yet to file their summary judgment motion. However, there is no requirement that Defendants file their motion more than 105 days in advance of the hearing date. Plaintiff further argues Defendants’ motion is untimely. At the time Defendants reserved their hearing date for the summary judgment motion, trial was set for May 24, 2023. The parties stipulated to a trial continuance on March 14, 2023 because discovery had not yet been completed. Defendants, however, failed to mention the need to continue the trial date to accommodate the summary judgment hearing date. Perhaps Defendants should have mentioned they intended to file a summary judgment motion and that the hearing was reserved for a date after May 24, 2023, and after the current trial date of November 16, 2023. Defendants’ reply admits as much. However, it is undisputed Defendants reserved the hearing date for the summary judgment motion well in advance of the current trial date. Defendants are entitled to have their summary judgment motion heard before trial.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause exists to continue the trial date. Given the Court’s impacted calendar, the Court will continue the trial to the first available date. However, Defendants do not set forth any grounds to set all trial-related dates to the new trial date. As such, discovery and all other trial-related dates remain tied to the November 16, 2023 trial date.

IV. CONCLUSION

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Defendants Adam Kligfeld’s and Havid Kligfeld’s motion for summary judgment is scheduled for February 22, 2024. The Final Status Conference scheduled for November 2, 2023 is CONTINUED to March 28, 2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Non-Jury Trial scheduled for November 16, 2023 is CONTINUED to April 11, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse. All discovery cut-off dates, all pretrial deadlines including discovery, expert, and motion cut-off dates remain set to the trial date of November 16, 2023.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated: September 28, 2023 ___________________________________

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.