Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV27792, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27792    Hearing Date: November 14, 2023    Dept: 27

Javier Moreno v. Richard Holz, Inc., et al.

CASE NUMBER: 22STCV27792

[OPPOSED]

TENTATIVE

Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

Background

The case stems from an injury suffered by Javier Moreno (“Plaintiff”) on September 8, 2020 after Plaintiff was working on the roof of a property, and fell through the roof, causing him serious injury. (Complaint, ¶¶ 11-12.) Plaintiff filed suit on August 25, 2022 against Richard Holz, Inc., SR Bray LLC, This Must Be The Place Trust (the “Trust”).

Sharon H. Utermohlen as Trustee of the Trust, and Richard Holz, Inc., (collectively, “Defendants”) filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial (“Motion”) on October 17, 2023. Plaintiff filed his Opposition Papers on October 31, 2023. Reply Papers were filed by Defendants on November 6, 2023. 

Discussion

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation): (1) unavailability of trial counsel or witnesses due to “death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”; (2) the addition of a new party depriving the new party (or other parties) from conducting discovery and preparing for trial; (3) “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts”; or (4) “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case” preventing it from being ready for trial.¿ (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)¿¿¿

The court may also consider the following factors: “(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 3.1332(d).)¿¿ ¿

Analysis

Plaintiff argues that they will be severely prejudiced if the trial is continued, as the continuance being requested is for a date after January 23, 2025, well over a year from now. Plaintiff contends that because of the injuries suffered, waiting for over a year for trial will place Plaintiff in a position where he will struggle to support himself financially because his injury has prevented him from working. (Opposition Papers, 2:8-20.)

Defendants argue that the Motion should be granted because Defendants have a right to a hearing on their Motion for Summary Judgment that was filed on November 6, 2023. Defendants contend that the Motion was filed timely in accordance with CCP §§ 437c(a)(1) and 437c(2) and that they have a statutory right to be heard per CCP § 437c and Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529. The Court agrees.

Plaintiff’s plight is understood; however, it cannot supersede the statutory right for a motion for summary judgment to be heard. As of this date, the motion was timely filed, and Defendants have shown that because of the Court’s calendar, the soonest hearing date for the summary judgment motion is January 23, 2025. (Motion, 4:26-28.) Moreover, the Court sees no alternative to addressing the issue of the hearing on summary judgment. Additionally, as Defendants point out, this is the first continuance requested in the trial, the length of the trial continuance requested was dictated by the Court’s calendar, not defendants. Although Plaintiff details the difficulties he may face outside the courtroom during the continuance, Plaintiff has presented no argument as to how his legal case in the courtroom faces prejudice.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants can bring their same defenses at the time of trial instead of requesting the continuance. Although true, this runs afoul of CCP § 437. As noted in Sentry, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, and Polibrid Coatings, Inc., v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4^th 920, 923, being heard on summary judgment is a statutory right, and the Court cannot violate such a right. Therefore, the instant Motion is granted.  

The Court notes that Defendants should intermittently look in the reservation system for an earlier date for the summary judgment motion to be heard.  When parties cancel, dates become available. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.