Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV40954, Date: 2024-05-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV40954 Hearing Date: May 20, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2021, Plaintiff Maria I. Rojas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Bre Encino Owner LLC (“Bre Owner”), Bre Imagination Pooled Retail II LLC (“Bre Retail”), The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company (“Whiting”), and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability.
On April 6, 2022, Whiting filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-100 for implied indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On April 27, 2022, Bre Owner and Bre Retail filed an answer.
On January 26, 2023, Bre Owner and Bre Retail filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Allied Universal Risk Advisory and Consulting Services, Inc., Andrew International, Inc., and Roes 1-25 for equitable indemnity, equitable apportionment, contribution, express indemnity, and declaratory relief. On March 8, 2023, Bre Owner and Bre Retail amended the cross-complaint to include Cross-Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP, as Roe 1. On April 14, 2023, Cross-Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP dba Allied Universal Security Services (erroneously sued as Allied Universal Risk Advisory and Consulting Services, Inc. and Andrew International, Inc.) (“Allied”) filed an answer.
On April 12, 2024, Bre Owner and Bre Retail (“Moving Defendants”) filed a motion for an order specially setting a hearing on their motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, an order continuing the trial and related dates and deadlines. The motion was set for hearing on May 20, 2024. On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On May 7, 2024, Allied filed a joinder in the motion. On May 10, 2024, Moving Defendants filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for July 22, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Moving Defendants ask the Court to specially set the hearing on their motion for summary judgment before the currently scheduled hearing date of December 11, 2024 and within thirty (30) days of the July 22, 2024 trial date, or, alternatively, to continue the trial to a date that is not less than thirty days after the presently scheduled December 11, 2024 hearing on the motion for summary judgment and to continue or reopen discovery and related dates. Allied joins the request.
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Motion 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.)
DISCUSSION
Moving Defendants served a timely motion for summary judgment. If not for the Court’s impacted calendar, the motion would have been set for hearing before trial. Similarly, because of the Court’s calendar, the Court cannot specially set the hearing on a date before the currently-scheduled trial.
“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c. [Citation.] Local rules and practices may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion. [Citation.].” (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529.)
The Court finds good cause and continues the trial to a date after the scheduled summary judgment motion. Discovery and related deadlines will be based on the new trial date.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion for an order specially setting a hearing on the motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, an order continuing the trial and related dates and deadlines filed by Defendants Bre Encino Owner LLC and Bre Imagination Pooled Retail II LLC.
The Court continues the trial to January 13, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is December 30, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. All discovery and related dates will be based on the new trial date.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.