Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV19096, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19096    Hearing Date: September 7, 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 7, 2022

CASE NUMBER

20STCV19096

MOTION

Motion to Continue Trial

MOVING PARTY

Defendant My Appliance Service, Inc. dba Appliance & Kitchen Outlet

OPPOSING PARTIES

Plaintiffs Kerianne Thomson and Michael Thomson

 

MOTION

 

Plaintiffs Kerianne Thomson (“Kerianne”) and Michael Thomson (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued defendant My Appliance Service, Inc. dba Appliance & Kitchen Outlet based on injuries Plaintiffs allege they sustained when a display refrigerator fell on Kerianne in a store owned and controlled by Defendant.  Defendant moves to continue trial, which is currently set for October 28, 2022, until at least June 2023, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Plaintiffs oppose 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, Defendant seeks a trial continuance to permit Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication to be timely heard before trial.  According to counsel for Defendant, Ilia Borisov (“Borisov”), Defendant has reserved the first-available date of May 9, 2023, for a hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication.  (Declaration of Ilia Borisov, ¶ 13.) 

 

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue Defendant has failed to show good cause for a continuance.  Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is not viable.  The Court notes, however, that the merits of Defendant’s proposed motion for summary adjudication are not at issue upon motion to continue to trial.

 

Accordingly, despite Plaintiffs’ contentions, 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: