Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV24449, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24449    Hearing Date: January 27, 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

Defendant City of Los Angeles (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, including all related dates and deadlines in this matter, which is currently set for March 3, 2023, to a date that is mutually convenient to the Court and parties.  Plaintiff Ernesto Perez (Plaintiff) opposes the motion.  Defendant replies.

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 of trial to allow Defendants to pursue a motion for summary judgment for which the earliest date available is May 20, 2024.  Defendant relies on the declaration of David L. Weisberg (Counsel), attorney of record for Defendant.  Counsel states that after conducting initial discovery, the parties participated in private mediation with Janet Fields of Judicate West, which was held on August 16, 2022 but could not reach a resolution.  (Declaration of David L. Weisberg, ¶ 3.)  In light of the failed mediation efforts, Defendant would like to pursue a motion for summary judgment, but the earliest hearing date is not until after the current trial date.  (Declaration of David L. Weisberg, ¶ 3.)  Defendant has reserved a hearing date on its Summary Judgment Motion for May 20, 2024.  (Declaration of David L. Weisberg, ¶ 3.)  Counsel concludes that even though there have been two prior trial continuances, an additional trial continuance will not cause prejudice to the parties or witnesses.  (Declaration of David L. Weisberg, ¶ 4.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause for a trial continuance in light of the following factors: (1) expert designation has already occurred, (2) this would be the third trial continuance, (3) the issues that form the basis for the City’s MSJ have been known by Defendant since the beginning of the litigation, and (4) as of the filing of Plaintiff’s opposition, more than 53 days since the MSJ deadline had passed, Defendant still had not filed its MSJ.  (Declaration of Thomas R. Burns, ¶¶ 3-6.)  Plaintiff does not oppose a brief continuance of 30-60 days to allow the completion of discovery.  Plaintiff concludes that a 14 month continuance creates profound prejudice to Plaintiff.

In reply, Defendant concedes it has yet to file its Motion for Summary Judgment but insists that is should be allowed to have its Summary Judgment Motion heard based on a showing of good cause.  Defendant further argues that Plaintiff has not articulated any facts showing how an additional continuance will harm him.  Further Defendant highlights that Motion for Summary Judgment would promote judicial economy by saving everyone resources by potentially avoiding trial.  

Notwithstanding, the Court finds that Defendant previously reserved September 20, 2023 for a summary judgment motion hearing, and that hearing date remains viable.  It is unclear to the Court why September 20, 2023 cannot serve as the hearing date for Defendant’s planned motion for summary judgment as opposed to May 20, 2024.  Based upon a hearing date of September 20, Defendant would need to serve and file its motion on or before July 3, 2023 which is more than ample time to prepare such motion. 

Consequently, the Court determines that Defendant has failed to show good cause for a 13 month trial continuance to accommodate a May 2024 motion for summary judgment hearing, and denies Defendant’s motion without prejudice. 

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