Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV44410, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44410    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 December 6, 2021, Plaintiff Marco Chavira (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants California Landmark Group and CLG Management, LLC (“Defendants”) for eight causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) premises liability; (3) negligence; (4) nuisance; (5) breach of contract; (6) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (7) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; and (8) violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.  This action arises out of an accident that occurred in Plaintiff’s rented loft-style apartment on October 30, 2020. 

Trial is currently set for June 5, 2023.

On January 17, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to specially set the hearing on motion for summary judgement and/or continue trial.  Defendants request an order continuing the trial date from June 5, 2023 to a date chosen by the Court that is on or after May 6, 2024, and all trial related deadlines, including motion and discovery cut-off dates based on the new trial date.

On January 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion.

On February 1, 2023, Defendants filed a reply.

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

Defendants move to continue trial from June 5, 2023 to a date chosen by the Court that is on or after May 6, 2024, and all related trial dates.  Alternatively, if the Court can accommodate a sooner MSJ hearing date than May 6, 2024, Defendants request that their MSJ be specially set for that date, and that the current trial date and related deadlines be continued to a date that is at least 30 days after the MSJ hearing date, but that trial be continued for at least six months to allow parties to complete all discovery, depositions, IMEs, and related issues and disputes prior to their MSJ or MSA filing. 

Defendants make the following arguments.   

First, Defendants contend that good cause exists under CRC Rule 3.332(d)(11) to continue trial because Defendants’ right to have their MSJ heard before trial qualifies for such outcome determinative fact or circumstance.  According to the Declaration of Minassian, there was no available MSJ hearing date on the Court’s reservation system prior to the currently set trial date that would allow for the required statutory notice to Plaintiff.  (Declaration of Minassian ¶ 5.)  The first available hearing date that would allow for the required statutory notice, April 5, 2024, was reserved, even though that date was after the currently set trial date of June 5, 2023.  (Minassian Decl., ¶ 6; Exhibit “A”.)  In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not filed the MSJ for which they seek a continuance and therefore their motion to continue trial must be denied.  However, the Court disagrees because, as Defendants point out in their reply, Defendant Robles Glass & Supplies (“Robles”) just recently filed its Answer and Cross-Complaint on January 26, 2023, despite Plaintiff serving Defendant Robles on August 30, 2022.  Therefore, Defendants need to complete their discovery with Robles so that they can properly bring their MSJ or MSA.  (Minassian Decl. ¶ 33; CRC Rule 3.332(c)(5).) 

Second, Defendants contend that the addition of Robles to this lawsuit, and their unanticipated delayed appearance presents a significant change in this case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.  (Minassian Decl., ¶ 26; CRC 3.1332(c)(7).)  In opposition, Plaintiff argues that, at the time of filing Defendants’ motion to continue trial, Robles has not appeared in this action and Plaintiff’s request for entry of default against Robles is pending.  However, as mentioned above, Robles has appeared in this action because it recently filed its Answer and Cross-Complaint on January 26, 2023. 

Third, Defendants contend that good cause exists to continue trial because the currently set trial date of June 5, 2023, conflicts with Defendants’ trial counsel’s schedule which is to begin in other cases on June 1, 2023 and June 2, 2023.  (Minassian Decl., ¶ 35; CRC Rule 3.332(d)(8).)  In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendants fail to provide details on opposing counsel’s other trials and that opposing counsel is currently attempting to move the trial that is set to begin on June 1, 2023, thereby rendering moot the need to continue trial.  In reply, Defendants provide the case names, numbers, and venues of the conflicting cases.  Also, even if Defendants’ counsel is successful in moving the June 1, 2023 trial, Defendants’ trial counsel is also set to begin trial in another case on June 2, 2023. 

 Further, Defendants contend that parties in this matter will not be prejudiced by a trial continuance, but not allowing a trial continuance will be prejudicial to Defendants for the reasons mentioned above.  (Minassian Decl., ¶¶ 36-39;  CRC Rule 3.332(d)(5).)  Lastly, Defendants contend that there have not been any trial continuances in this matter, and this will be the first delay.  (Minassian Decl., ¶ 42;  CRC Rule 3.332(d)(2).)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that good causes exist to continue the trial date and all related dates.  Therefore, 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 June, 5, 2023 to _______________, or a date thereafter convenient to the Court in Department 27. 

The Final Status Conference is continued from May 22, 2023 to ______________, in Department 27. 

All related trial deadlines, including all fact and expert discovery deadlines, 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 8th day of February 2023