Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV42307, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42307    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

I.        Background 

On December 2, 2020, Plaintiff Jay Zink filed this action against Defendants 400 Transport, Inc., Carlos Mosqueda Romero, an individual, Alma Rosa Castillo Romero, an individual, and Does 1 to 20. On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint substituting Defendant MT. SHASTA BOTTLING AND DISTRIBUTING COMPANY (Mt. Shasta) for Doe 1. On December 22, 2023, Defendant Mt. Shasta filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Mt. Shasta. The current trial date is April 22, 2024, and the earliest hearing for summary judgment is scheduled for November 22, 2024(current hearing date). However, this is in violation of Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(3), which requires the MSJ to be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial. Thus, Defendant Mt. Shasta requests the Court to continue the trial date and all related dates from the current trial date of April 22, 2024, to 30 days after the MSJ hearing date scheduled for November 22, 2024. The motion is unopposed.

II.        Trial Continuance 

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance 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; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).) 

Here, there is a good cause to continue the trial date. Mt. Shasta was brought into the case on April 17, 2023, and subsequently, on December 22, 2023, they filed a motion for summary judgment, for the earliest hearing for summary judgment on November 22, 2024. (Declaration of Napoleon G. Tercero, III ¶ 3.) A trial court cannot refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 437c. (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 919.) Defendants were named less than a year ago and filed a summary judgment promptly thereafter. Furthermore, the length of the continuance is reasonable as it seeks only to extend the trial date 30 days after their MSJ hearing.

Based on the foregoing, Mt. Shasta's motion to continue the trial is GRANTED. The April 22, 2024, trial date is continued to December 22, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The April, 8, 2024, Final Status Conference is continued to [new Final Status Conference date] at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27. All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to comport with the new trial date.

The moving party is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

·         Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

·         If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

·         Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

·         If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

Dated this 27^th day of February 2024