Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV36234, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV36234 Hearing Date: February 1, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 22, 2020, Plaintiff Rico A. Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Zeyu Zhang (“Zhang”), Bryan Joh (“Bryan Joh”), Eunkey Joh (“Eunkey Joh”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, and intentional tort.
On May 26, 2022, Bryan Joh and Eunkey Joh filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Zhang and Roes 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief.
On September 22, 2022, the Court dismissed Zhang without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On October 26, 2022, the Court dismissed the cross-complaint without prejudice at the request of Bryan Joh and Eunkey Joh.
On January 5, 2024, Bryan Joh and Eunkey Joh (“Defendants”) filed a motion to continue trial to be heard on February 1, 2024.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 20, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendants request that the Court continue the trial to allow their summary judgment motion to be heard before the trial.
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
Defendants ask the Court to continue the trial from May 20, 2024 to January 6, 2025 or a later date so that their summary judgment motion may be heard prior to trial.
Defendants have not filed a summary judgment motion, although they have reserved an October 29, 2024 hearing date. The Court therefore denies the motion without prejudice. If Defendants file and serve a timely motion for summary judgment, they may submit another request to continue the trial.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice the motion of Defendants Bryan Joh and Eunkey Joh to continue the trial.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are to file proof of service of this ruling within five days.