Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV29981, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV29981    Hearing Date: April 3, 2023    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

MOTION

Plaintiff Victoria Kim sued Defendants/Cross-Complainants Textron, Inc. and E-Z-GO Division of Textron, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) based on injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained when she was struck by a golf cart owned and controlled by Defendants.  Defendants move to continue trial, which is currently set for June 9, 2023, to August 14, 2024, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  Defendants reply.

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 have their motion for summary judgment timely heard before trial.  According to counsel for Defendants, Austin Smith (Counsel), Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on August 21, 2019.  (Declaration of Austin Smith, ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff named Defendants in this action via Doe Amendment on April 7, 2022.  (Declaration of Austin Smith, ¶ 3, Exhibit B.)  Counsel states Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on May 23, 2022.  (Declaration of Austin Smith, ¶ 4, Exhibit C.)  Counsel states that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is on calendar for May 16, 2024, which was the earliest reservation date available that complied with statutory notice guidelines when the hearing was reserved.  (Declaration of Austin Smith, ¶ 6, Exhibit D.)  Defendants conclude they will be unfairly prejudiced if they are not able to have their Motion for Summary Judgment heard, as they claim to have a complete defense to Plaintiff’s general negligence claim. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendants have failed to show good cause for a continuance.  Plaintiff first argues Defendants raised the same reason for a trial continuance in their initial motion to continue trial, heard by the Court on July 26, 2022.  Plaintiff contends that the Court granted Defendants’ motion and continued trial for ten months to allow Defendants to file their motion for summary judgment.  However, in the past ten months, Defendants have failed to draft or file their Motion for Summary Judgment and have thus squandered the previous ten month continuance the Court afforded them.  Plaintiff next argues that the Court must deny Defendants’ request for trial continuance, as said continuance would delay trial to a date just short of the five year anniversary of the filing of the complaint, placing Plaintiff at risk for dismissal. 

In reply, Defendants first contend that Plaintiff mischaracterizes Defendants’ prior motion to continue trial.  The arguments raised in Defendants’ initial motion for continuance primarily focused on the fact that they had just been added to the case in the mere months prior, and thus needed additional time to complete necessary discovery.  Thus, Defendants prior arguments for trial continuance are distinct from those raised in the instant motion to continue.  Defendants next argue that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the trial continuance.  Defendants explain that based on the application of Emergency Rule 10 of California Rules of Court, Plaintiff must bring her action to trial on or before February 25, 2025.  Thus, the requested trial continuance to August 14, 2024, would leave six months before the statutory limitation on Plaintiff’s complaint elapsed.

However, the Court notes that Defendants did in part move to continue the trial on the grounds that they should have an opportunity to have a motion for summary judgment heard in advance of a trial in this action.  In particular, Defendants stated in the July 2022 motion to continue trial:  “There are no other alternative means for the Textron Defendants and the other parties to conduct discovery, prepare for trial, and preserve the right to have a motion for summary judgment heard before trial.”  (See Notice of Motion and Motion to Continue Trial, filed June 9, 2023, p. 3.)  Yet, Defendants did not reserve a hearing on a motion for summary judgment until January 11, 2023 – more than 5 months after the Court granted Defendants’ motion to continue trial.  Further, the Court notes to date that Defendants have not filed and served the motion for summary judgment – almost 3 months after reserving the hearing on such motion.  Thus, the Court determines that Defendants have been dilatory and have not shown good cause to continue the trial, especially when based primarily on a “reserved hearing” on a motion for summary judgment.  (See, e.g., Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 526, 529 [a trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c”].) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies without prejudice Defendants’ motion to continue trial.   Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of such.