Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 21STCV30667 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

ALEXANDER JOSEPH GUERRERO,,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CAROLINE NGO, CRAIG FINLEY, RICHARD PRANADA, DENISE PRANADA, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

CASE NO.: 21STCV30667

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL-RELATED DEADLINES

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

January 24, 2023

On August 18, 2021, Alexander Joseph Guerrero (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Caroline Ngo (“Ngo”), Craig Finley (“Finley”), Richard Pranada (R. Pranada), Denise Pranada (D. Pranada), and DOES 1-20 (collectively “Defendants”). The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint (FAC), filed February 16, 2022. The FAC lists causes of action for 1) negligence (as to all Defendants), 2) premises liability (as to all Defendants), 3) battery (as to Finley only), and 4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (as to Finley only). The action arises out of a get together where Plaintiff was an invited guest and Finley accidentally discharged a gun that fired and struck Plaintiff.

On December 27, 2022, Ngo filed a motion for an order continuing the current trial date of February 15, 2023 to January 25, 2024 or a date thereafter. Finley filed a statement of non-opposition to Ngo’s motion on January 3, 2023. Plaintiff, Defendant R. Pranada, and Defendant D. Pranada did not file oppositions.

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.) This is true whether the continuance is contested, uncontested, or stipulated to by the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332).

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).)

On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)

The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier, (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

Defendant Ngo moves for an order continuing trial and all pre-trial related dates. Ngo filed a motion for summary judgment on October 31, 2022, pursuant to the time requirements under Code of Civil Procedure sections 437(c)(a)(2) and 437(c)(f)(2). (Motion, pg. 2, lines 13-14.) However, due to Court’s impacted calendar, the summary judgment hearing could not be scheduled until December 12, 2023. (Motion, pg. 2, lines 17-19.) As a result, the hearing is currently set to take place nearly ten months after Trial.

Ngo argues that good cause for granting a continuance exists pursuant to rule 3.1332(c)(7). After weighing the factors for determining good cause listed under 3.1332(d), the Court agrees.

Trial is currently set for February 15, 2023 and yet Ngo’s summary judgment motion is set to be heard December 12, 2023. Therefore, the proximity of trial supports granting a continuance.

No trial continuances have been granted thus far in the case. Therefore, this factor supports granting a continuance.

Ngo requests that Trial be continued just short of ten months to allow the summary judgment hearing to take place. Given that the requested new date aligns with Defendant’s purpose for requesting a continuance, and ten months is not too excessive, the length of continuance supports granting a continuance.

Ngo requests in the alternative that the Court specially set the motion for summary judgment hearing date on or about 30 days prior to trial, as that is the closest date to trial a summary judgment hearing is allowed to take place pursuant to 437(c)(a)(2) and 437(c)(0(2). However, the 30-day deadline was January 16, 2023. Because that date passed, specially setting the summary judgment motion for earlier hearing is not a viable alternative. Therefore, the lack of viable alternatives to hearing Ngo’s summary judgment motion also supports granting a continuance.

Ngo claims that Ngo will be prejudiced were the Court not to grant a continuance because the ruling on the summary judgment motion could obviate the need for Ngo to expend the energy and resources needed for trial. Additionally, it does not appear that any prejudice will result to the other parties. Finley filed a notice of non-opposition on January 3, 2023, stating that he will not take a position for or against Ngo’s request for a continuance. The other defendants, as well as Plaintiff, did not file oppositions.

This factor weighs against Ngo as courts have an important interest in the speedy, efficient resolution of cases. However, where the interest in efficient resolution of cases runs into the interest in deciding cases on their merits, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency. Hernandez at 1242.

This factor is not applicable as there is no showing that trial counsel of any party has a conflict.

Plaintiff has stipulated to the trial continuance via email. (Motion, Declaration of Roxanne Swedelson, para. 3, Ex. A.) Therefore, this factor supports granting a continuance.

Given that Ngo timely filed the motion for summary judgment on October 31, 2022, three and half months before trial, the interests of justice would be served by continuing trial to allow Ngo’s timely motion to be heard. Moreover, Plaintiff has stipulated to the continuance and the other defendants have either filed a notice of non-opposition or left this motion unopposed. This indicates that no parties would be prejudiced by granting a continuance of trial. Therefore, this factor supports granting a continuance.

There do not appear to be any facts or circumstances here that would push the Court to not grant a continuance.

On balance, the factors above support a finding of good cause for continuing Trial.

Ngo’s Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Pre-Trial Dates is GRANTED. Trial is continued from February 15, 2023 to _____________. Final Status Conference is continued to ______. All related discovery dates shall correspond to the new trial date.

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.