Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV10515, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10515    Hearing Date: June 5, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.  

BACKGROUND  

On May 10, 2023, Plaintiff Jorj Avanesi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Sanborn Hotel Limited Partnership (“Hotel”), The Skid Row Housing Trust (“Trust”), and Does 1-30 for general negligence and premises liability. 

On July 17, 2023, the City filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Hotel, Trust, and Roes 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. 

On July 28, 2023, the Hotel and the Trust filed an answer. 

On February 27, 2025, the City filed and electronically served a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.  The motion was set for hearing on August 20, 2025.  On March 14, 2025, the Hotel and the Trust filed a joinder in the motion. 

Also on February 27, 2025, the City filed an amended motion to continue the trial.  The motion was set for hearing on April 24, 2025.  The Court continued the hearing to June 5, 2025.  On April 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition.  On May 28, 2025, the City filed a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for July 8, 2025. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

The City asks the Court to continue the trial to September 23, 2025 or the next available date to allow the Court to consider the City’s motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD

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 

As noted, the City filed and electronically served a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on February 27, 2025.  The motion was set for hearing on August 20, 2025, after the July 8, 2025 trial date.  The City asks the Court to continue the trial to September 23, 2025 or the next available date to allow the Court to consider the City’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. 

Plaintiff opposes the motion to continue the trial, arguing Defendant should have filed the motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication sooner.

“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 City timely filed and served its motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.  Due to the Court’s impacted calendar, however, the motion was set for hearing after the current trial date.  The Court therefore grants Defendant’s motion and continues the trial to September 25, 2025. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion to continue the trial.  The Court continues the trial to September 25, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The Court continues the Final Status Conference to September 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  Discovery and related dates and deadlines 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.