Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV10433, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV10433    Hearing Date: August 4, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On March 13, 2020, Plaintiff Gene Parsons (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Long Beach (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”) and State of California (“State”) for general negligence, premises liability and dangerous condition of public property. 

On July 12, 2021, the City filed an answer; it amended its answer on July 22, 2021. On July 26, 2021, the State filed an answer. 

On July 14, 2021, the Court dismissed the County without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. On January 14, 2022, the Court dismissed State without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Defendant Michael Bohman (“Bohman.”)  Plaintiff served the summons and complaint on Bohman on December 22, 2022.  On January 17, 2023, Bohman filed an answer. 

On June 30, 2023, Bohman filed a motion to continue the trial to be heard on August 4, 2023. On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition.  On July 28, 2023, Bohman filed a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for August 23, 2023. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Bohman requests that the Court continue the trial to allow his motion for summary judgment to be heard prior to trial.  Bohman is not asking to reopen discovery. 

Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b) provides that “a party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” 

          Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), the Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts,” or the unavailability of a party, counsel, or expert due to death, illness or other excusable circumstance. The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) 

DISCUSSION 

The Court finds good cause to grant the continuance. Because Plaintiff did not amend the complaint to add Bohman until October 28, 2022, and did not serve the summons and complaint on Bohman until almost two months later, Bohman has not previously had an opportunity to file a motion for summary judgment.  A continuance of the trial is appropriate to give Bohman this opportunity. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Michael Bohman to continue the trial. Trial is continued to June 10, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is continued to May 28, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The motion for summary judgement hearing cut-off is set to trail the new trial date.  Discovery will not be reopened. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.