Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV34560, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34560    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 19, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Continue Trial

Moving Party: Defendant City of Burbank

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Jarett Jakarr Waddell, et al

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS DENIED.

            DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.         

While trial continuances are generally disfavored, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1332(c), circumstances that indicate good cause for a continuance include “[a] party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(c)(6).) Factors the Court may consider include, “[t]he proximity of the trial date,” “[w]hether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party,” and “[t]he length of the continuance requested.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(d).) 

Defendant moves to continue the trial from March 6, 2023 to May 5, 2023 so their motion for summary judgment can be heard. Defendant asserts that on September 18, 2022, when they reserved a hearing date for their motion, the earliest available day was March 8, 2023 – two days after the trial date. Defendant filed their motion for summary judgment on December 23, 2022.

Plaintiff opposes a trial continuance. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has delayed seeking a continuance, arguing that Defendant has known since September that a trial continuance would be necessary to hear their motion on the reserved hearing date.

Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(a)(2) requires that a motion for summary judgment be filed at least 75 days before the hearing date. Section 437c(a)(3) requires that the motion be heard no later than 30 days before trial, unless the Court for good cause orders otherwise. On September 18, when Defendant reserved a hearing date of March 8, Defendant knew it had a problem: its hearing date was after the trial date and would not comply with section 437c(a)(3).

Defendant had ample time to seek to advance the hearing on the summary judgment motion or to continue trial; Defendant did neither for months. Indeed, the Court held a status conference on November 1; Defendant could have raised it then, but Defendant failed to appear. Defendant could have filed their summary judgment motion earlier than December 23 and asked the Court to consider good cause to hear it less than 30 days before the trial date. Instead, Defendant sat on their hands for 96 days, waited until the last possible day (based on a noncompliant hearing date) to file their summary judgment motion, and now contends they are entitled to a trial continuance.

Defendant may not leverage their inaction into a trial continuance. As Defendant acknowledges, the Court of Appeal in Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529 held that a Defendant should not be denied a hearing on their summary judgment motion because of circumstances beyond their control. Here, the circumstances were not beyond Defendant’s control.

Defendant does not show good cause for a continuance.

Defendants’ motion is DENIED.