Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV12273, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12273    Hearing Date: February 8, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On April 1, 2021, Plaintiff Shirley Zarifpour (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Albertsons Companies, Inc., Albertsons Companies, Inc. dba Pavilions, Major Plumbing Co. Inc., and Eleven Western Builders, Inc. (“Defendants”) for premises liability and general negligence arising out of a slip and fall accident on March 12, 2021 at a Pavilions grocery store.

On July 30, 2021, Defendant Eleven Western Builders, Inc. filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants ACP Blason, LLC, and Central City Wrecking dba Central City Enterprises for breach of written contract, equitable indemnity, comparative partial indemnity, and declaratory relief (“Cross-Defendants”).

Trial is currently set for April, 19, 2023.

On January 1, 2023, Cross-Defendant ACP Blason, LLC filed a motion to continue trial and all related pretrial, discovery and motion dates to April 29, 2024, or the nearest available date thereafter. 

The motion is unopposed.  

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).)  Continuances are thus generally disfavored. (See id. rule 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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at 1246.)  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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

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.  (Id., rule 3.1332(d).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Cross-Defendant ACP Blason, LLC moves to continue trial and all related pretrial, discovery and motion dates from April, 19, 2023 to April 29, 2024, or the nearest available date thereafter.  Cross-Defendant makes the following primary arguments.

First, Cross-Defendant contends good cause exists under CRC Rule 3.332(c)(7) to continue the trial to at least 30 days after the MSJ hearing date of February 28, 2024.  According to the Declaration of Shepherd, the earliest date for a MSJ hearing was February 28, 2024 when his office accessed the Court’s online Courtroom Reservation on November 15, 2022.  (Declaration of Shepherd ¶ 2.)  There is a legitimate basis for moving for summary judgement because there is no evidence that Cross-Defendant placed the black tape over the drain hole that Plaintiff tripped on in the subject incident.  (Shepherd Decl., ¶ 4.) 

Further, Cross-Defendant contends good causes exists under CRC 3.1332(d)(2) because there has been only one prior continuance which was pursuant to written stipulation by the parties.  (Shepherd Decl., ¶ 3.; CRC 3.1332(d)(2).)

Lastly, Cross-Defendant contends good causes exists under CRC 3.1332(d)(9) because it does not expect any oppositions to be filed because all the parties have agreed to this continuance and have tentatively agreed to a mediation date of August 8, 9, or 10, 2023.  (Shepherd Decl.,¶ 6; CRC 3.1332(d)(9).)  On February 1, 2023, Cross-Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition.  To date, no opposition has been filed.

 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that good causes exist to continue the trial date and all related dates.  Therefore, Cross-Defendant’s motion to continue trial and all related dates is GRANTED. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Cross-Defendant’s motion to continue trial and all related dates is GRANTED. 

Trial is continued from April, 19, 2023 to ________________. 

The final status conference is continued from April 5, 2023 to ______________. 

All related discovery, motion, expert dates and deadlines 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 8th day of February 2023