Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV03439, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV03439, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV03439 Hearing Date: April 3, 2025 Dept: F

RODRIGUEZ v. CAM ONE PROPERTIES, LP

CASE NO.: 23NWCV03439

HEARING: 04/03/25

#21

Defendants CAM ONE PROPERTIES, LP; FINALLY THREE LLC; and JERVIS PROPERTY SERVICE, INC.’s motion to continue trial and all trial-related dates is GRANTED. All pre-trial cut-off dates will correspond with the new trial date.

The Joinder filed by Defendant GARCIA LANDSCAPE DESIGN is DENIED as untimely. Joinders must be filed and served pursuant to the same timelines required by the underlying Motion. Motions to Continue Trial must be filed and served at least 16 days before the hearing. (CCP §1005(b).) The Joinder was not filed and served until March 27, 2025.

Moving Party to give notice.

This premises liability action was filed by Plaintiffs ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ and ROCIO PUENTES CARRILLO (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against Defendants CAM ONE PROPERTIES, LP; FINALLY THREE LLC; JERVIS PROPERTY SERVICE, INC.; JOSE GARCIA LANDSCAPING and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive on October 10 25, 2023.

Plaintiffs’ operative Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Negligence/Premises Liability; and (2) Loss of Consortium.

Trial is currently scheduled to begin on June 13, 2025.

On February 21, 2025, Defendants Cam One Properties, LP; Finally Three LLC; and Jervis Property Service, Inc. (collectively “Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or alternatively Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues (“Motion”). The Motion is scheduled to be heard after trial, on June 16, 2025. Counsel for Moving Defendants states: “On February 19, 2025, Defendants’ counsel reserved the first available date for this Court to hear the MSJ. That date was July 16, 2025, a date after the currently scheduled trial date of June 13, 2025.” (Karayan Dec., ¶8.)

Moving Defendants now move to continue trial pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1332, and the case Sentry Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, arguing that good cause exists to continue trial to allow Moving Defendants’ timely filed and served Motion to be heard.

In Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the Motion should be denied because the trial continuance sought is a result of Moving Defendants’ own lack of diligence, and because Plaintiffs will suffer prejudice if trial is continued.

“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.” (Sentry Insurance Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529-530.) Moreover,“[a]lthough 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).)

The Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Deadlines is GRANTED.

The Moving Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication was timely filed and served per Code in accordance with current trial date. The only reason that the Motion cannot be heard before the current trial is due to the congestion of this Court’s law and motion calendar.

The Court finds that a trial continuance on or after September 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 trial date.