Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV10763, Date: 2024-12-11 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: 22STCV10763 Hearing Date: December 11, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 29, 2022, Plaintiff Keily Almendares (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Scott Calder Warren (“Warren”), Linda Calder (“Calder”), and Does 1-50 for negligence, negligence per se, negligent entrustment, and respondeat superior.
On October 25, 2022, Warren and Calder (“Defendants”) filed an answer. On January 26, 2024, Defendants filed an amended answer.
On October 24, 2024, Defendants filed and electronically served a motion for summary judgment. The motion was set for hearing on April 23, 2025.
On October 29, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to specially set/advance the hearing of their motion for summary judgment or to continue the trial. The motion was set for hearing on December 11, 2024. On November 1, 2024, Defendants filed a supplement to the motion. On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a response. On December 4, 2024, Defendants filed a reply.
Trial is currently set for January 22, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendants ask the Court to specially set or advance the hearing on their summary judgment motion or to continue the trial.
Plaintiff does not oppose the request to specially set or advance the hearing on the summary judgment motion, but Plaintiff opposes the request to continue the trial.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Summary judgment scheduling
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (a), provides:
“(a) (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. [Citation.]”
(L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before
Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 10:71, p. 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.)
B. 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.)
DISCUSSION
Defendants ask the Court to specially set or advance the hearing on their motion for summary judgment or continue the trial to a date after the hearing on the summary judgment motion.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 22, 2025. However, Defendants filed and electronically served their summary judgment motion on October 24, 2024, more than two weeks after the statutory deadline discussed above. Because Defendants did not timely serve their motion for summary judgment, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to specially set or advance the hearing on the summary judgment motion or to continue the trial.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the motion filed by Defendants Scott Calder Warren and Linda Calder to specially set or advance the hearing on their motion for summary judgment or to continue the trial.
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.