Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV15552, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV15552    Hearing Date: September 22, 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 22, 2022

CASE NUMBER

20STCV15552

MOTION

Motion to Specially Set Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication or, in the Alternative, Continue Trial

MOVING PARTY

Defendant Nova Vitae Treatment Centers, Inc.

OPPOSING PARTY

None

 

MOTION

 

Plaintiffs Veronica Wilson and Everette Wilson, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Veronica Wilson, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued defendant Nova Vitae Treatment Centers, Inc. based on the death of Nicholas Wilson while under Defendant’s treatment and care.  Defendant moves to specially set the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) for September 21, 2022, or any other date convenient for the Court and at least 30 days prior to trial.  In the alternative, Defendant moves to continue trial, which is currently set for December 13, 2022, to accommodate the hearing on Defendant’s MSJ.  The motion is unopposed.  

 

Based on the availability of the Court’s calendar, the Court denies in part the motion to specially set the hearing on Defendant’s MSJ and, instead, considers Defendant’s motion to continue trial.

 

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, Defendant seeks a continuance to permit Defendant’s MSJ to be timely heard before trial.  According to counsel for Defendant, J. Michael McClure (“McClure”), his office reserved the first available date of July 7, 2023, for a hearing on Defendant’s MSJ before filing and serving the MSJ on July 8, 2022.  (Declaration of . Michael McClure, ¶¶ 3-4.)

 

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

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 

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

 

 

 

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such