Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV05186, Date: 2024-12-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV05186 Hearing Date: December 4, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 10, 2022, Plaintiff Martin Castro Vela (“Vela”) filed this action against Defendants State of California (“State”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), City of Los Angeles (“City”), Vesta Housing Solutions, LLC (“Vesta”), and Does 1-20 for (“Vesta”) for general negligence and premises liability.
On June 27, 2022, Vesta filed an answer. On June 30, 2022, Vesta filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-100 for implied indemnity, comparative contribution, total equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief.
On August 1, 2022, the Court dismissed the City without prejudice at Vela’s request. On August 18, 2022, the Court dismissed the County and the State without prejudice at Vela’s request.
On September 6, 2022, Vela amended the complaint to include Defendant Bernards Bros. Inc. dba Bernards as Doe 1 (“Bernards”). On October 12, 2022, Bernards filed an answer.
On September 11, 2023, Vela amended the complaint to include Defendant TMP Services, Inc. as Doe 2 (“TMP”).
On November 7, 2023, TMP filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Bernard Bros. Inc., Vesta, and Moes 1-20 for indemnity, contribution, comparative partial indemnity, and declaratory relief—apportionment of fault. On November 28, 2023, Bernards and Vesta filed an answer to TMP’s cross-complaint. On December 18, 2023, TMP amended its cross-complaint to include Cross-Defendant Preferred Modular Structures, Inc. as Moe 1 (“Preferred”). On January 25, 2024, the Court dismissed Bernard Bros. Inc. and Vesta from TMP’s cross-complaint without prejudice at TMP’s request.
On February 16, 2024, Vela amended the complaint to include Defendant Preferred as Doe 3. On April 22, 2024, Preferred filed an answer to Vela’s complaint.
On April 22, 2024, Preferred filed an answer to TMP’s cross-complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Vela, State, County, City, Vesta, Bernards, TMP, and Zoes 1-50 for indemnification, contribution, declaratory relief—apportionment of fault, and comparative partial indemnity. On May 17, 2024, Bernards and Vesta filed an answer to Preferred’s cross-complaint. On July 29, 2024, the Court dismissed the County from Preferred’s cross-complaint without prejudice at Preferred’s request.
On October 16, 2024, Preferred filed a motion to continue the trial and related pretrial dates. The motion was set for hearing on December 4, 2024. On November 19, 2024, Vela filed an opposition. On November 25, 2024, Preferred filed a reply.
Trial
is currently scheduled for February 6, 2025.
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. Motion 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.
(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.)
C. Summary judgment scheduling
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (a) provides:
“(1) A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. The motion may be made at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct.
“(2) Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. If the notice is served by mail, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by 5 days if the place of address is within the State of California, 10 days if the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States, and 20 days if the place of address is outside the United States. If the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by two court days.
“(3) The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. The filing of the motion shall not extend the time within which a party must otherwise file a responsive pleading.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a).)
To satisfy the statutory notice requirement, a summary judgment motion “must be served at least 105 days before trial (longer if served by mail) [citation]. Motions served electronically must be served at least 107 days before trial.” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 10:71, pp. 10-32 to 10-33.) “The 30-day ‘cut-off’ under [Code of Civil Procedure section 437c] is measured from the trial date in effect when the summary judgment motion is made.” (Id., ¶ 10:74, p. 10-33.) “[A] continuance of the trial date ‘reopens’ the time for such motions.” (Ibid.)
“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 437c.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529.)
DISCUSSION
Preferred asks the Court to continue the trial and related pretrial dates because Preferred’s current counsel substituted into the case on August 15, 2024 and needs additional time to prepare a motion for summary judgment.
Although Preferred argues that its current counsel substituted into the case in August 2024, Preferred has not made “an affirmative showing that the substitution [was] required in the interests of justice . . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(4).)
Based on the current February 6, 2025 trial date, Preferred would have had to file and serve a motion for summary judgment motion in October 2024. On December 18, 2023, TMP amended its cross-complaint to include Preferred as a cross-defendant. On February 16, 2024, Vela amended the complaint to include Preferred as a defendant. Preferred has not shown that it had insufficient time to prepare and file a motion for summary judgment by the October 2024 deadline.
The
Court has considered the factors listed in California Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(c), and finds that Preferred has not established good cause to continue
the trial. The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant and Cross-Defendant Preferred Modular Structures, Inc.’s motion to continue the trial and related pretrial dates.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.