Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV28647, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV28647    Hearing Date: March 7, 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 Mission Hills Shopping Center LLC (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, and related discovery and expert cut off dates, which is currently set for April 10, 2023 to July 5, 2024.  Plaintiff Myranda Isabelle De La Cruz (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 file a Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) that will be heard by the Court 30 days before the set trial date.  Defendant relies on the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Marjorie Motooka (Counsel).  Counsel avers that Defendant is planning to file a MSJ; however, the first available date on the Court’s CSR system is May 21, 2024.  (Declaration of Marjorie Motooka, ¶ 6.)  Counsel confirms that the May 21, 2024 date has been reserved.  (Ibid.)  Defendant concludes that it is entitled to have its MSJ heard, and as such, the court is required to continue the trial date to a date at least 30 days after May 21, 2024. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant has failed to make an affirmative showing of good cause for a trial continuance, specifically because Defendant has failed to provide any explanation whatsoever as to why it waited over two years to reserve its MSJ hearing on December 21, 2022.  Plaintiff states that no new discovery has occurred since Spring 2021, other than Plaintiff’s deposition.  Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to identify any new information obtained at Plaintiff’s deposition that would give rise to an MSJ, that was not already revealed in Plaintiff’s March 3, 2021 discovery responses.  Plaintiff concludes if Defendant had reserved its MSJ hearing date sooner, it could have been heard ahead of the present trial date and without the need for another unreasonable and lengthy trial continuance.  Finally Plaintiff highlights that under 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 437c.”  However, Plaintiff notes that Defendant has not yet filed the MSJ, and said motion would further fail to comply with the timing requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 473c.

In reply, Defendant highlights that it reserved a MSJ hearing shortly after taking Plaintiff’s deposition and at that time the only available date was May 21, 2024.  Thus, Defendant contends the Court must hear its MSJ and continue the trial date to allow for the MSJ to be heard. 

The Court finds Defendant has shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.  Notwithstanding, the Court finds that an earlier hearing date for the MSJ is available on the Court’s calendar – September 12, 2023.  Therefore, the Court will advance and reset the reserved hearing on Defendant’s MSJ from May 21, 2024  to September 12, 2023. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

·       Advance and reset the reserved hearing on Defendant’s MSJ from May 21, 2024  to September 12, 2023 at 1:30 P.M. in Department 32.

·       The trial date, currently set for April 10, 2023, is continued to October 20, 2023 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.

·       The Final Status Conference, currently set for March 27, 2023, is continued to October 5, 2023 at 10:00 A.M. in Department 32.

·       All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the new trial date of October 20, 2023.

·       Per the Discovery Act, the parties shall meet and confer forthwith to schedule and complete all non-expert discovery and to prepare for the completion of expert discovery to obviate the need for a further continuance of the trial. 

·       No further continuance of the trial absent sufficient good cause. 

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