Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV02366, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

Case Number: 23SMCV02366    Hearing Date: April 1, 2025    Dept: I

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s application to continue the trial, which is currently set for April 14, 2025.  Normally, the court would deny the motion.  As the court has stated (often), its calendar is such that it will not grant trial continuances absent unforeseen or unforeseeable circumstances or good cause that is compelling.  Plaintiff states that she just learned the identity of the driver who caused the driver of the bus to slam on the brakes.  She says she learned this when she saw the City’s MSJ, which named him.  Oddly, the MSJ had been set for March 18, 2025, but was not on the calendar.  That might be because it was set less than 30 days before the trial date and the court denied the City’s motion to continue the trial.  However, the City did not seek leave to allow the motion to be heard less than 30 days before the trial, which is something the court had discretion to grant.

In any event, plaintiff does not explain what efforts were taken to learn Meyers’ identity prior to when the MSJ was filed, so the court does not see adequate diligence here.  But, as fate would have it, the court has trials lined up on the runway.  It appears likely that the court will be starting a new trial the week before this case is set, and that case will last some number of weeks.  The likelihood of that case settling seems remote, as the parties have appeared for the FSC and seem to be ready for trial.  Given that, it would seem that a continuance is inevitable.  Further, there is another case also ready to go in the event that the current case surprisingly does settle.  The court sees no reason to deny the application when it turns out the court will not be able to hear the case anyway.

The court will hear from the City, but is inclined to GRANT the motion.  The court would also restore the City’s MSJ to the calendar if the City requests.  The court will make sure that adequate notice is given to plaintiff to satisfy the statute.  Therefore, the FSC and trial dates are VACATED.  The court will set a TSC date and restore the MSJ to the calendar.

The court can make no assurances as to when it will be able to restore this case to the trial calendar, however.