Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 18STCV07852, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 18STCV07852    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

September 15, 2022

CASE NUMBER

18STCV07852

MOTION

Motion to Continue Trial

MOVING PARTIES

Defendants Alpha Beta Company dba Ralphs, The Kroger Co., Judith Eideles as Successor Trustee of the Samuel Chmelnicki 2006 Living Trust dated April 6, 2006

OPPOSING PARTY

None

 

MOTION

 

Plaintiff Michelle Garza sued defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Ralphs, The Kroger Co., Judith Eideles as Successor Trustee of the Samuel Chmelnicki 2006 Living Trust dated April 6, 2006 (collectively, “Defendants”) based on injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained on property owned and controlled by Defendants.  Defendants move to continue trial, which is currently set for February 1, 2023, until at least July 24, 2023, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

 

ANALYSIS

 

 “Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”  (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)  A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.  (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.  Whether the parties have stipulated to the postponement is a relevant factor for consideration.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 595.2, but see Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753, 756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely “directory”].)  

 

Here, Defendants seek a trial continuance to permit Defendants time to complete necessary discovery and have their motion for summary judgment timely heard before trial.  According to counsel for Defendants, Terry Porvin (“Porvin”), his office reserved the first available date of May, 25, 2023, for a hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  (Declaration of Terry Porvin, ¶ 7.)  Porvin also states that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ written discovery has necessitated motions to compel Plaintiff’s discovery responses.  (Declaration of Terry Porvin, ¶ 6.) 

 

The Court finds Defendants have shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to continue trial and orders as follows: