Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV40737, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40737    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

20STCV40737

MOTION

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

MOVING PARTY

Defendant Precision Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC

OPPOSING PARTY

Plaintiff Stephanie Sutherland

 

MOTION

 

Plaintiff Stephanie Sutherland sued defendant Precision Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC (“Precision”) based on injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained while under Precision’s treatment and care.  Precision moves to specially set the hearing on Precision’s motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) for April 14, 2023.  In the alternative, Precision moves to continue trial, which is currently set for May 25, 2023, to January 22, 2024, to accommodate the hearing on Precision’s MSJ.  Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to specially set the hearing on Precision’s MSJ, but does oppose Precision’s request continue trial to January 22, 2024.  Defendant Amy Shouhed, CRNA joins the motion. 

 

Based on the Court’s severely impacted calendar, the Court denies in part the motion to specially set the hearing on Precision’s MSJ and, instead, considers Precision’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, Precision seeks a continuance to permit Precision’s MSJ to be timely heard before trial.  According to counsel for Precision, Doria G. Thomas (“Thomas”), Precision decided a MSJ was appropriate based on Plaintiff’s discovery responses served on June 22, 2022.  (Declaration of Doria G. Thomas, ¶ 7.)   Thomas states that, on June 28, 2022, Precision reserved the first-available date of October 23, 2023, for the hearing on its MSJ.  (Declaration of Doria G. Thomas, ¶ 3.)  

 

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

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 

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