Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV29205, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV29205 Hearing Date: April 11, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 30, 2023, Plaintiff Thomas Graham (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants John Doe, DSI Security Services (“DSI”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Ari Fleet LT as Doe 1 and United Rentals (North America), Inc. (“United”) as Doe 2.
On February 2, 2024, DSI filed an answer. On September 12, 2024, the Court dismissed DSI from Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On March 5, 2024, United filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants DSI, D.S.I. Electronic, and Does 1-50 for equitable indemnity, contribution and apportionment, declaratory relief, negligence, and express contractual indemnity. On March 25, 2024, DSI filed an answer to the cross-complaint. On June 7, 2024, United amended the cross-complaint to include Cross-Defendant Dothan Security, Inc. (“Dothan”) as Doe 1. On July 29, 2024, DSI and Dothan filed an answer to United’s cross-complaint.
On July 18, 2024, DSI and Dothan filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant United for breach of contract. On August 19, 2024, United filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On December 10, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendants John Doe and Does 1-50 from Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On February 7, 2025, DSI and Dothan filed and served (by email and personal delivery) a motion for summary judgment of United’s cross-complaint. The motion was set for hearing on July 21, 2025.
On March 7, 2025, DSI and Dothan (“Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to continue the trial and related dates. The motion was set for hearing on April 11, 2025. No opposition has been filed.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 29, 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
On February 7, 2025, Moving Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment of United’s cross-complaint. Moving Defendants served the motion by email and personal delivery the same day. The motion is set for hearing on July 21, 2025, which is after the May 29, 2025 trial date.
“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.)
Moving Defendants timely filed and served their summary judgment motion. Due to the Court’s impacted calendar, however, the motion was set for hearing after the current trial date. The Court therefore continues the trial to August 25, 2025, with related dates to be based on the new trial date.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion of Cross-Defendants and Cross-Complainants DSI Security Services and Dothan Security, Inc. to continue the trial and related dates. The Court continues the trial to August 25, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Court continues the Final Status Conference to August 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 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.