Complaint Filed: 1/31/22¿ 

Trial Date: 5/16/24¿¿ 

¿ 

¿¿ 

Hon. Lee S. Arian¿¿ 

Department 27¿¿ 

Tentative Ruling¿ 

¿¿ 

Hearing Date: 3/11/2024 at 1:30 p.m.¿¿ 

Case No./Name: 22STCV03753 MIGUEL RAMIREZ vs NOEMI OROZCO 

Motion: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND TRIAL-RELATED DATES¿ 

Moving Party: Defendant Guadalupe Dominguez 

Responding Party: Unopposed¿ 

Notice: Sufficient¿ 

¿¿ 

Ruling: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND TRIAL-RELATED DATES¿IS GRANTED 

 

¿ 

¿ 

Background¿ 

¿ 

On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present auto accident case against the defendants, Noemi Dominguez and Guadalupe Dominguez. Defendant allege that she was not involved in the subject motor vehicle accident nor did she own the vehicle Noemi Dominguez was operating. On January 9, 2024, defense counsel reserved the soonest available hearing date for a motion for summary judgment on December 5, 2024. Trial in this matter is scheduled for May 16, 2024, several months prior to the current reservation for Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant requests that the trial date be continued to January 13, 2025, and all pre trial dates be continued in accordance with the new trial date.  

¿ 

Legal Standard¿and Analysis¿ 

¿ 

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).)¿¿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.)¿ 

¿¿ 

The motion for summary judgment (MSJ) in question is scheduled for a hearing on December 5, 2024. The current trial date is May 16, 2024. Continuing the trial date so Defendant’s motion for summary judgment can be heard constitutes good cause. Thus, the Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.  The new trial date is set for January 6, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. and all pretrial dates are continued in accordance with the new trial date.  The Final Status Conference is continued to December 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. 

 

 

¿PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿¿ 

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.¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿