On October 7, 2021, plaintiffs Richard Patterson and William Milton (“Plaintiffs”), successors in interest and/or personal representatives of the Estate of Charles Michael Farrell (“Decedent”) filed this action against defendants The Salvation Army (“TSA”), Colby Hudson Pinckard (“Pinckard”), Jackie Roe Triplett (“Triplett”), and Edwin Bonilla (“Bonilla”).  The action arises out of an altercation between the Individual Defendants, who are three employees and beneficiaries (participants in a residential treatment program) of TSA, and Decedent, a man visiting a nearby homeless encampment. 

On December 1, 2022, TSA filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1-25.   

On December 12, 2022, TSA named Pinckard as Roe 1 and Triplett as Roe 2 in its cross-complaint. 

Trial is currently scheduled for ¿April 6, 2023¿.   

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).) 

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. 

TSA seeks a trial continuance because (1) the pleadings in Plaintiffs’ complaint and TSA’s cross-complaint are not at issue; (2) Bonilla was recently served with Plaintiffs’ operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) and needs additional time to conduct discovery, investigation, and prepare his defense;  (3) TSA’s Cross-Complaint is not at issue because TSA recently named cross-defendants Triplett, Pinckard, Bonilla, and BAH to TSA’s Cross-Complaint.; (4) TSA recently filed its answer to Plaintiff’s TAC; (5) Plaintiffs served Triplett and Pinckard and have not been able to take a default from these defendants; (6) TSA, Bonilla, and likely BAH and Pinckard, intend to bring motions for summary judgment to the TAC and related Cross-Complaints, none of which can be heard until April 16, 2024, at the earliest; (7) there is significant discovery that must be completed prior to trial, including taking depositions of the co-defendants; (8) the parties have agreed to engage in private mediation; and (9) none of the parties or witnesses are known to suffer any prejudice from a trial continuance.  (See Rand Decl., ¶¶ 21-33.)  Trial is currently scheduled for April 6, 2023 and TSA has reserved the date of April 16, 2024 for its motion for summary judgment.  Thus, TSA requests a trial continuance to accommodate the April 16, 2024 hearing date.     

Bonilla joins TSA’s motion to continue the trial because he filed his answer to the TAC on February 15, 2023, and has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery. 

Plaintiffs argue that (1) TSA has failed to demonstrate due diligence in conducting discovery, (2) because TSA learned it had a crossclaim against BAH as early as February 25, 2022, TSA’s recent imputation of BAH serves only to delay the trial, and (3) Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by the continuance by incurring additional expense.   

The Court finds that TSA has demonstrated good cause to continue the trial.  Although the Court agrees that TSA delayed in conducting certain discovery and delay in its pursuit of its claim against BAH, the other factors, including the lack of an available hearing date for TSA’s motion for summary judgment prior to the current trial date, warrants a trial continuance.  Parties have a statutory right to file a motion for summary judgment.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473c; Polibrid Coatings, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 920, 923.)  The Court further notes that TSA reserved the April 16, 2024 hearing date for its motion for summary judgment on December 24, 2022, which is well before the 30 day and 75 day requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 473c.  (Rand Decl., ¶ 24.)  For this reason, the Court finds good cause exists to continue the trial date in this matter. 

Accordingly, Defendant The Salvation Army’s motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued from ¿April 6, 2023¿ to ¿Click or tap here to enter text.¿ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from ¿March 23, 2023¿ to ¿Click or tap here to enter text.¿ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27.  All pretrial deadlines including discovery and motion cut-off dates are to be based on the new trial date.    

Moving party to give notice. 

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. 

       Dated this 27th day of February 2023