Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 20STCV490158, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV490158    Hearing Date: December 10, 2024    Dept: F

GAMEZ, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

CASE NO.: 20STCV49018

HEARING:  December 10, 2024 @ 10:30 a.m.

#18

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants County of Los Angeles, Leticia Garcia, Francine Jimenez, and Gabriela Alcala’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

Defendants to give notice.

Background

This is a wrongful death and survival action. On December 22, 2020, Plaintiffs Maria Gamez, K.G. and A.G., minors through their Guardian ad Litem, Maria Gamez, (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against County of Los Angeles, Leticia Garcia, Gabria Alcala, Francine Jimenez, Geraldo Gamez, Tomas Gamez, Maria Guadalupe Gamez, aka Maria Guadalupe, (“Defendants”) and Does 1 to 100. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) was filed on July 26, 2021. The FAC alleges Plaintiff Maria Gamez is the motion of James Gamez (“Decedent”). The FAC alleges the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") failed to investigate and prevent abuse and the ultimate death of Decedent, perpetrated by Decedent’s father and foster parents.

On October 29, 2021, Defendant Geraldo Gamez (“Cross Complanant”) filed the Cross-Complaint against County of Los Angeles, Leticia Garcia, Gabria Alcala, Francine Jiminez, Maria Gamez, and Does 1 to 50.

Trial is currently set for January 28, 2025, and the Final Status Conference is set for January 14, 2025. Francine Jimenez, and Gabriela Alcala (“County Defendants”) now move the Court for an order continuing trial and all related dates to May 20, 2025 and continuing the Final Status Conference to May 6, 2025, or as soon thereafter as convenient for the Court.

On December 4, 2024 County Defendants filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. The Motion remains unopposed as of December 9, 2024.

Legal Standard

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)

The Court, in making its determination to continue the trial should 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 unavailability 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.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(d).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subsection (a)(3) states the following: “The motion [for summary judgment] shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. The filing of the motion shall not extend the time within which a party must otherwise file a responsive pleading.”

Discussion

County Defendants provide the following procedural background in support of their Motion. County Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Cross-Complainant’s Cross-Complaint (“MSJ”) on November 29, 2023. The MSJ hearing was originally set in February 2024, well in advance of any trial related deadline. The hearing was continued several times. On July 24, 2024, the Court converted County Defendants’ MSJ against Plaintiffs into a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and granted the Motion. The Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing for the Motion for Summary Judgment against Cross-Complaint to January 9, 2025, less than three weeks before trial on January 28, 2025. County Defendants argue that the current hearing date is less than 30 days before trial, in violation of Civil Code of Procedure, section 437c, subsection (a)(3).

All parties agreed to continue trial to late-Spring or early-Summer 2025 via email. (Lieber Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. 1.) Counsel for all parties except Plaintiffs have executed a Joint Stipulation to Continue Trial. (Lieber Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. 2.) Counsel for County Defendants have made numerous, but unsuccessful, attempts to contact Plaintiffs regarding the Joint Stipulation. (Lieber Decl. ¶ 11.)

The Court finds current trial date is in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subsection (a)(3), which requires motions for summary judgment to be heard no later than 30 days before trial. The Court further finds good cause exists to continue trial under CRC Rule 3.1332 (c)-(d). County Defendants timely filed their Motion for Summary Judgment so that it could be decided before incurring substantial defense costs in preparing for trial and retaining experts. (Lieber Decl. ¶ 4.) The current trial date would prejudice County Defendants by forcing them to prepare for trial pending the success of their Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Cross-Complaint. Considering all parties, including Plaintiffs, have agreed in writing to the continuance, the Court finds Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by the continuance. (Lieber Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. 1.)

County Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. The Court finds that a trial continuance from January 28, 2025 to or after May 20, 2025 (depending on the Court and parties’ availabilities) is reasonable. All pre-trial deadlines will correspond with the new trial date. The Court will confer with the parties at the hearing in order to select the new Final Status Conference and trial dates.