Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV20240, Date: 2024-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20240    Hearing Date: December 19, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On May 28, 2021, Plaintiff Chiquita Randle (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Witeby Enterprises, 1661, Inc. (“Defendants”) and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive for (1) negligence and (2) premises liability. The Complaint alleges that on or about May 29, 2021, Defendants negligently maintained the property located at 3960-3962 Landmark Street, Culver City, CA (“Premises”) causing Plaintiff to trip and fall in the parking lot of the Premises and suffer injuries requiring surgery. (Compl., ¶¶10, 12, 19-20.)

On October 27, 2021, Defendant 1661, Inc. filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On December 6, 2021, Defendant Witeby Enterprises filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint against Defendant 1661, Inc.

On January 5, 2022, Defendant 1661, Inc. filed an Answer to Cross-Complaint and Cross-Complaint against Defendant Witeby Enterprises.

On January 18, 2022, Defendant Witeby Enterprises filed an Answer to Cross-Complaint.

On January 19, 2023, the Court denied Defendant 1661, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

On October 4, 2024, the Court denied Defendant 1661, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

On October 14, 2024, Defendant 1661, Inc. filed a renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.

On November 13, 2024, the Court denied Defendant 1661, Inc.’s Motion to Specially Set the Hearing Date or, Alternatively, Continue Trial to Accommodate Motion for Summary Judgment.

On November 15, 2024, Defendant 1661, Inc. filed the instant renewed Motion to Specially Set the Hearing Date or, Alternatively, Continue Trial to Accommodate Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

“A party seeking to advance, specially set, or reset a case for trial must make this request by noticed motion or ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1335, subd. (a).) “The request may be granted only upon an affirmative showing by the moving party of good cause based on a declaration served and filed with the motion or application.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1335, subd. (b).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant 1661, Inc. dba GOAT (“GOAT”) moves for an order specially setting its renewed Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication (“MSJ”) to be heard on January 6, 2025 instead of June 18, 2025. Alternatively, GOAT requests an order continuing trial in this matter for 30-days (July 18, 2025) after the hearing on the renewed MSJ.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c): the court may grant a continuance for “good cause,” which includes: (1) unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) substitution of trial counsel required in the interests of justice; (5) addition of a new party or other parties in regard to a new party’s involvement hasn’t had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; (6) party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which indicates the case is not ready for trial. (Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 3.1332(c).)¿¿ 

¿¿Other relevant factors to be considered may include: “(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 Ct., Rule 3.1332(d).)¿¿ 

¿¿“A trial court has great discretion in the disposition of an application for a continuance. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, the court’s determination will not be disturbed.” (Estate of Smith v. Atkinson (1973) 9 Cal.3d 74, 81.) “Such discretion is abused, however, where the lack of a continuance results in the denial of a fair hearing.” (Rankin v. Curtis (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 939, 947.)¿

GOAT argues good cause exists to advance the hearing of its renewed MSJ or continue trial to accommodate the currently set hearing date because the renewed MSJ was timely filed after Plaintiff produced new evidence that was not in GOAT’s possession at the time of the filing of the prior MSJ.

Although addressing the merits of the renewed MSJ would be improper here, the Court notes there is statutory authority that permits renewal of a prior MSJ upon a showing of newly discovered facts or circumstances, or a change of law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(2) stating, “A party shall not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court unless that party establishes, to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion.”) Furthermore, GOAT filed and served its renewed MSJ on October 14, 2024, which is within the 75-day notice requirement for filing such motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(2).) However, a motion for summary judgment must be heard no later than 30 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(3).) As stated above, the renewed MSJ is currently set for hearing four months after the jury trial. Also, GOAT reserved the first available hearing date for the renewed MSJ.  Having filed no opposition to this Motion, Plaintiff has not indicated that it would suffer prejudice by advancing the hearing of the renewed MSJ. The related Motion for Reconsideration is already set for January 6, 2025. In the interest of judicial economy, hearing both motions simultaneously appears to be appropriate.  However, to address timing issues arising from changes to the summary judgment law, the Court will discuss the Motion with the parties.

Dated this 19^th day of December 2024