Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV03217, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV03217    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

                    I.INTRODUCTION 

On January 30, 2019, Plaintiff Madison Castellanos (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Los Angeles Community College District, West Los Angeles College, City of Los Angeles, and County of Los Angeles(“Defendant”) alleging two causes of action for (1) negligence and dangerous condition of public property and (2) premises liability. Plaintiff alleges that she was injured while in the care and custody of a child care and education facility when her left pinky was pinched by a door.

            On October 16, 2023, Defendant Los Angeles Community College District filed the current Motion to Continue Trial Date. As of November 13, 2023, no opposition has been filed.

                 II.LEGAL STANDARD 

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (Ibid.)  Good cause includes the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness, party, or trial counsel; “the substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;” the addition of a new party; a party’s excused inability to obtain evidence; or a significant, unanticipated change in the case.  (Ibid.) 

Furthermore, the Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: 

“(1) The proximity of the trial date; 

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to 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(d)(1)-(11).) 

              III.DISCUSSION 

Defendant Los Angeles Community College District moves to have the trial date, currently set for February 2, 2024, continued.

            Defendant argues that a trial continuance is proper to allow Defendant’s timely filed motion for summary judgment to be heard because when Defendant reserved a hearing date, the first available date was November 20, 2024.

            “The decision to grant or deny a continuance is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citation.] The trial court's exercise of that discretion will be upheld if it is based on a reasoned judgment and complies with legal principles and policies appropriate to the case before the court.” (Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.) Further, judges have to ensure a somewhat swift resolution while still ensuring that the matter is resolved based on the merits rather than any procedural issues. “When the two policies collide head-on, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency.” (Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395.)

            The Court finds that continuing the trial is proper. Unfortunately, given the 5-year rule (and the 6-month emergency provision), it cannot continue the trial beyond July 30, 2024.  As a cautionary matter given that July 30 date, the Court will continue the trial to July 1, 2024.  That still does not resolve the issue of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment being heard before the trial date.  It does, however, give Defendant the opportunity to be on the lookout for a motion for summary judgment date opening up prior to the new trial date.  At this time, that is the best the Court can do. 

            Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.  The trial date is continued to July 1, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

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: November 16, 2023