Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV31130, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV31130 Hearing Date: February 26, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers and notice of non-opposition, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 23, 2021, Plaintiffs Glenda Guerrero, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem David Guerrero, Daraly Guerrero, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem David Guerrero, Gabriela Espinoza, David Guerrero, Yerie Castillo, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Cecilia Espinosa, and Cecilia Espinosa filed this action against Defendants City of La Verne (“City”), Bonita Unified School District (“District”), and Does 1-100 for dangerous condition of public property (Gov. Code, § 835), negligence/vicarious liability (Gov. Code, § 815.4), negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence/premises liability.
On January 5, 2022, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant West Coast Arborists, Inc. (“Arborists”) as Doe 50.
On January 10, 2022, District filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-20 for express indemnity, implied indemnity, contribution and indemnity, declaratory relief, and duty to defend. On January 12, 2022, District withdrew the answer and the cross-complaint.
On January 26, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Defendants City, District, Arborists, Does 1-49 and 51-100, and Roe Corporations 1-20 for dangerous condition of public property (Gov. Code, § 835), tortious act of omission of independent contractor (Gov. Code, § 815.4), negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability.
On February 15, 2022, District filed an answer.
On March 7, 2022, Arborists filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Moes 1-100 for equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On March 14, 2023, City filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-100 for indemnity, apportionment of fault, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On October 13, 2022, the Court dismissed “all causes of action as to Defendant BONITA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT” without prejudice at District’s request.
On October 27, 2022, the Court dismissed District’s cross-complaint without prejudice at District’s request.
On February 10, 2023, the Court denied Arborists’ motion for summary judgment.
On November 3, 2023, the Court dismissed “Plaintiff Yerie Castillo, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Cecilia Espinosa, as to Defendant City of La Verne” from the amended complaint without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On November 6, 2023, the Court dismissed “Plaintiff, Cecilia Espinosa as to Defendant West Coast Arborists, Inc., ONLY” (or Arborists) from the amended complaint without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
Also on November 6, 2023, the Court dismissed “Plaintiff, Cecilia Espinosa as to Defendant City of La Verne, ONLY” (or City) from the amended complaint without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On December 5, 2023, the Court dismissed “Plaintiff, Yerie Castillo, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Cecilia Espinosa as to Defendant West Coast Arborists, Inc., ONLY” from the amended complaint without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On January 5, 2024, Arborists filed a motion to continue the trial and all related dates, to be heard on February 26, 2024. On February 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 4, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Arborists ask the Court to continue the trial and related dates.
Plaintiffs do not oppose the request.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Request to continue trial
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, provides:
“(a) Trial dates are firm
“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.
“(b) Motion or application
“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.
“(c) Grounds for continuance
“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:
“(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
“(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
“(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
“(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;
“(5) The addition of a new party if:
“(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or
“(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;
“(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or
“(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.
“(d) Other factors to be considered
“In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include:
“(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, rule 3.1332.)
B. Request to continue or reopen discovery
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 provides:
“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.
“(b) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 provides:
“(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:
“(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.
“(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.
“(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.
“(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.
“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 provides: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”
DISCUSSION
Arborists ask the Court to continue the trial to July 15, 2024 or the next available date and order that discovery and motion cut-off dates will be based on the new trial date. Plaintiffs do not oppose the request.
The Court finds good cause and continues the trial to July 15, 2024 or the next available date. In addition, the Court has considered the factors listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 and grants the motion to continue or reopen discovery. Discovery and all trial-related dates will be based on the new trial date.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant West Coast Arborists, Inc.’s motion to continue the trial and related dates. The Court continues the trial to July 15, 2024 or the next available date at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. (The Court will provide the trial date and final status conference date at the February 26, 2024 hearing.) All discovery and related dates will be based on the new trial date.
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.