Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV15221, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV15221 Hearing Date: January 4, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff Jasmin Daniella Campos (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“Department”), and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability.
On November 28, 2022, the City and Department filed an answer and the City filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1 to 25 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief.
On November 13, 2023, the City and Department filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, which is set for hearing on March 6, 2024.
On November 16, 2023, the City and Department (“Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to continue the trial. On December 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 1, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Moving Defendants ask the Court to continue the trial to August 26, 2024.
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion.
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
Moving Defendants request that the Court continue the trial because it is currently scheduled to begin on March 1, 2024, five days before the March 6, 2024 hearing on their motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.
A court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. (See Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 919.) Although Plaintiff asserts that Moving Defendants could have filed their summary judgment motion earlier, Plaintiff does not show that the motion is outside the time limits of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.
Moving Defendants ask the Court to continue the trial to August 26, 2024 because their counsel’s trial calendar “does not free up until August 2024.”
The Court finds good cause to continue the trial but declines to continue the trial to August 2024. The Court continues the trial to May 7, 2024.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The Court continues the trial to May 7, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is April 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Discovery and all 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 a proof of service of this ruling within five days.