Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV383888, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV383888    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

          On October 19, 2021, Darryl Lee Morris (“Plaintiff”) commenced the instant action by filing a Complaint against Jun Hyo Lee, Sook Jun Hwang, Ki Jeong Seong, Uni Trans, LLC, and Does 1 through 100 (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiff’s Complaint arises from an automobile collision, and alleges the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle; (2) General Negligence; (3) Negligent Entrustment of a Motor Vehicle; and (4) Negligence Per Se.

On February 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, substituting Speedy Fuel, Inc. (“Defendant Speedy Fuel”) as Doe 3.

          On December 23, 2022, Defendant Speedy Fuel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.  Defendant Speedy Fuel’s Motion for Summary Judgment is scheduled for hearing on April 24, 2024.

          On December 29, 2022, Defendant Speedy Fuel filed the present Stipulated Motion to Continue Trial, FSC & Related Cut-Off Dates, or, In the Alternative, to Allow for Motion for Speedy Fuel, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment to be Heard Prior to Current Trial Date.  

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).)  Continuances are thus generally disfavored.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (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, subd. (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, subd. (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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (d).) 

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. (hereinafter, “Defendant”) moves for an Order continuing the current trial date of April 18, 2023 by approximately one (1) year and two (2) months to June 5, 2024, in order to permit Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to be beard prior to the trial date in this action.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c), (d).)  Defendant represents, despite having filed a Motion for Summary Judgment nearly four (4) months before the current trial date, the earliest hearing date available upon the Court’s reservation system was April 24, 2024, nearly one year following the current trial date.  (Hart Decl., ¶ 5.)  Defendant requests an Order continuing the current trial date to a date after April 24, 2024—the date of hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment—in order to permit such hearing prior to the commencement of trial.  Defendant submits a stipulation of all parties, indicating the whole of the parties agree to continue the trial date 2023 by approximately one (1) year and two (2) months to June 5, 2024.  (Hart Decl., Ex. A.) 

Following review of Defendant’s arguments and submitted evidence, the Court concludes good cause supports the trial continuance presently requested by Defendant, and to which the sum of the parties in this action agree.  (Hart Decl., Ex. A.)  The Court observes the subject Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant has been filed in a timely manner, in congruence with the requirements enumerated within Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a).)  The Court further observes the inability of the Court to hear Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment prior to the current trial date of April 18, 2023 is a result of the Court’s congested calendar, as opposed to some error which may be attributed to Defendant.  Additionally, with respect to the length of the continuance requested by Defendant, the Court notes all parties agree to the requested continuance and, further, this is the first continuance in this action.  (Hart Decl., Ex. A.)  Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes the requested continuance may be permitted, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d)(9) and (d)(11).  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (d)(9), (d)(11).)

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc.’s Stipulated Motion to Continue Trial, FSC & Related Cut-Off Dates is GRANTED.  The trial date in this action is continued from April 18, 2023 to June 5, 2024.  All trial-related dates and deadlines are continued in conjunction with 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 26 day of January 2022