Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV14352, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV14352 Hearing Date: April 29, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff Michael Levtow (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants HOA Management Professionals, Inc. (“Management”), Montclair (Kenmore) Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Montclair”), Jonathan Ardon (“Ardon”), and Does 1-100 for negligence, assault, and battery.
On October 9, 2023, the Court sustained with leave to amend the demurrer filed by Management and Montclair.
On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On November 28, 2023, Management and Montclair filed an answer to the first amended complaint.
On November 8, 2024, James Sode, individually and in his capacity as successor-in-interest to Plaintiff Michael Levtow, filed a second amended complaint against Defendants Management, Montclair, Ardon, and Does 1-100 for negligence, assault, and battery.
On November 20, 2024, Management and Montclair filed an answer to the second amended complaint.
On March 19, 2025, Management and Montclair filed and electronically served a motion for summary judgment. The motion was set for hearing on August 20, 2025.
On March 20, 2025, Management and Montclair (“Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to continue the trial and related dates. The motion was set for hearing on April 29, 2025. No opposition has been filed.
On March 21, 2025, the Court denied Moving Defendants’ ex parte application to continue the trial until after the hearing on their summary judgment motion. The Court found that the motion for summary judgment was untimely.
Trial is scheduled for June 16, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Moving Defendants ask the Court to continue the trial and related dates to allow the Court to consider their motion for summary judgment.
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, subdivision (b) provides:
“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, subd. (b).)
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
As noted, Moving Defendants filed and electronically served a motion for summary judgment on March 19, 2025. The motion was set for hearing on August 20, 2025, after the June 16, 2025 trial. Moving Defendants ask the Court to continue the trial to September 19, 2025 to allow the Court to consider their summary judgment motion. (See Asrani dec. ¶ 4.)
“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.)
Here, however, Moving Defendants did not timely serve their summary judgment motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (a)(2), (a)(3).) Trial is scheduled for June 16, 2025 but Moving Defendants electronically served the summary judgment motion on March 19, 2025, after the statutory deadline. Therefore, the Court denies the motion to continue the trial and related dates.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the motion to continue the trial and related dates filed by Defendants HOA Management Professionals, Inc. and Montclair (Kenmore) Homeowners Association, Inc.
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.