Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV33743, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV33743    Hearing Date: March 9, 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 EAN Holdings, LLC (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, and related discovery and expert cut off dates, which is currently set for July 28, 2023, to July 10, 2024.  Plaintiffs Misty Lynn Newton, Patrick Joseph Frasier, and Cindy Carvel (collectively, Plaintiffs) oppose the motion.  Defendant replies. 

Preliminarily, the Court notes Plaintiffs’ opposition was filed and served on February 27, 2023, only six court days before the set hearing date, and was thus untimely.  The Court further notes that despite the opposition’s untimeliness, Defendant nevertheless filed a timely reply to the opposition fully addressing its merits.  The Court therefore finds Defendant will not be prejudiced by the Court’s consideration of Plaintiffs’ untimely opposition, and, accordingly, exercises its discretion to do so.

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 that will be heard by the Court 30 days before the set trial date.  Defendant relies on the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Rodrigo J. Bozoghlian (Counsel).  Counsel avers that based on the current trial date of July 28, 2023, the last day for a hearing on a motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication in this matter is June 28, 2023, and the last day to file a motion to be heard is April 14, 2023.  (Declaration of Rodrigo J. Bozoghlian, ¶ 2.)  Counsel attempted to schedule the hearing on its motion for summary judgment, for a date no later than June 28, 2023, however, the first available date in the online Court Reservation System was June 10, 2024, a little more than ten months after the current trial date.  (Declaration of Rodrigo J. Bozoghlian, ¶ 3.)  Counsel concludes that Defendant will be unduly prejudiced if its motion for summary judgment cannot be heard sufficiently in advance of trial, as it would deprive Defendant of the opportunity to dispose of this matter altogether without trial, and save all parties and the Court from expending further, potentially unnecessary time and resources.  (Declaration of Rodrigo J. Bozoghlian, ¶ 6.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs first argue Defendant asserted the same arguments for a continuance in its ex parte application to continue trial as it asserts in this motion.  Plaintiffs conclude the Court should deny this motion because it has already ruled on the same factual and legal arguments that Defendant put forth in its Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial.  Plaintiffs next argue that Defendant failed to make the required affirmative showing of good cause to continue trial.  Plaintiffs argue the instant motion is premature as Defendant has not yet filed a motion for summary judgment.  Further Plaintiffs point out that nothing prevented Defendant from filing its motion for summary judgment and then requesting the Court to specifically set the date for it to be heard.  This is Defendant’s second request for trial continuance.  Plaintiffs’ argue the length of the continuance requested is lengthy and unjustified.  Plaintiffs attest continuance of this trial would prejudice Plaintiffs because their counsel would be uncertain about the firmness and certainty of a set trial date; thus, prejudicially affecting Plaintiffs’ ability to schedule and prepare around any potential future trial date.  Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue if the Court grants a trial continuance, the trial continuance should not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.  Plaintiffs argue the circumstances here indicate that Defendant is requesting a continuance of trial, mainly to conduct additional discovery that they have had ample time to conduct.  Plaintiff concludes therefore, the Court should deny Defendant’s request to reset discovery cutoff dates if the Court in its discretion sets a new trial date.

In reply, Defendant argues despite Plaintiffs’ incorrect and misleading arguments to the contrary, Defendant’s motion to continue trial is, in fact, the proper procedure under the circumstances, and is in no way intended to achieve ulterior motives.  Defendant highlights that a trial court has a duty to hear a timely motion in a manner consistent with the rights of the parties and the requirements of the statute.  Further, the Court’s Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Court (“Eighth Amended Standing Order”), states, in relevant part, “[t]he PI Hub Courts have no capacity…to shorten time to add hearings to their fully booked motion calendars.” (Eighth Amended Standing Order, Sec. 10, p. 9:14-15.)  Thus, the Court advises “the moving party should reserve the earliest available motion hearing date (even if it is after the scheduled trial date) and file a noticed motion to continue the trial.” (Eighth Amended Standing Order, Sec. 10, p. 9:18-20.)  Defendant additionally attests that Plaintiffs only advance conclusory statements in support of their contention that they would be prejudiced by the proposed continuance.  Defendant points out that this motion is not identical to Defendant’s prior ex parte application.  Although Defendant’s prior ex parte application did reference the unavailability of any earlier dates on the Court’s calendar for a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, Defendant did not argue in its ex parte application that the requested continuance was necessary to accommodate a particular hearing date because none had been reserved.  Defendant now advances that it has reserved the first-available date of June 10, 2024, for a hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment – which is 10 months and 13 days after the currently scheduled trial date.  Thus, Defendant concludes that the instant motion to continue is premised upon additional facts and arguments not presented in Defendant’s previous ex parte application.  Finally, Defendant argues that the Court should exercise its discretion to continue the discovery and motion cut-off dates to correspond to the new trial date because Plaintiffs only assert speculative and conclusory arguments as to why the Court should decline to do so.

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 Defendant, but for the June 10, 2024 reserved hearing on its Motion for Summary Judgment, was prepared to file and serve its Motion for Summary Judgment based on the current trial date of July 28, 2023.  Therefore, the Court is inclined to grant in part Defendant’s motion as set forth below.   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

·       The reserved hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is advanced and reset on July 5, 2023 at 1:30 P.M. in Department 32. 

·       The trial date, currently set for July 28, 2023, is continued to August 17, 2023 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.

·       The Final Status Conference, currently set for July 13, 2023, is continued to August 3, 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 August 17, 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.