Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV40899, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40899    Hearing Date: April 12, 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 2016 Argyle, LLC (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, and related discovery cut off dates, which is currently set for May 1, 2023, to a date convenient to the Court in December 2023.  Plaintiff Andrea Rothstein (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 adequately finalize discovery, prepare for trial, and have its Motion for Summary Judgment, set for hearing on June 17, 2024, heard. Defendant relies on the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Stephen S. Smyth (Counsel).  Counsel avers that on October 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) and added three additional causes of action for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability, Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, and Violation of Civil Code section 1942.4.  (Declaration of Stephen S. Smyth, ¶ 5.)  Counsel states that on January 3, 2023, his law firm substituted into this case on behalf of Defendant.  (Declaration of Stephen S. Smyth, ¶ 6.)  On January 25, 2023, Counsel made a reservation for June 17, 2024 for a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Defendant, which was the Court’s first available date.  (Declaration of Stephen S. Smyth, ¶ 7.)  Counsel avers that the parties have worked diligently to complete discovery and the crucial remaining discovery to be completed is related to the new causes of action asserted in the FAC.  (Declaration of Stephen S. Smyth, ¶ 9.)  Counsel additionally argues that a trial continuance will give the parties time and ability to discuss settlement.  (Declaration of Stephen S. Smyth, ¶ 9.)  Finally, Counsel explains that trial counsel for Defendant has other cases set for trial around May 1, 2023, the current trial date for this matter, which are unlikely to be continued or which have priority.  (Declaration of Stephen S. Smyth, ¶ 10.)

In her opposition, Plaintiff first states that though she is amenable to stipulating to a new trial date to accommodate Defendant’s counsel’s trial calendar, she is opposed to the length of continuance which would essentially serve to reopen discovery because Defendant has failed to cite to any good cause for such a continuance.  Plaintiff explains that she made several attempts to reach Defendant in order to file a joint stipulation that would allow her to file a FAC without court intervention.  However, because Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s inquiries, Plaintiff was forced filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint on February 25, 2022.  The earliest hearing date for this motion was September 26, 2022.  Plaintiff contends that Defendant was put on notice of her additional causes of action on March 3, 2022, when Plaintiff sought ex parte to advance the hearing date for her motion for leave to file a FAC.  Plaintiff highlights that between March of 2022 and January of 2023, Defendant conducted no discovery.  Further since substituting in as counsel, Defendant’s new counsel has only served supplemental requests for production and interrogatories.  Thus, Plaintiff concludes Defendant has failed to show good cause for reopening discovery in this matter.

In reply, Defendant argues that it has a statutory right to have its motion for summary judgment heard before trial.  Defendant further highlights that the three additional habitability causes of action did not become a part of the operative complaint until October 10, 2022, and argues Plaintiff has not clarified why these causes of action were added so late in the litigation process.

The Court notes to date that Defendant has not filed and served a motion for summary judgment.  Thus, the Court determines that Defendant has not shown good cause to continue the trial based in part on a “reserved hearing” on a motion for summary judgment.  (See, e.g., 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 section 437c”].)  Moreover, the Court notes that Defendant seeks a trial continuance to December 2023, despite a motion for summary judgment reserved for hearing on June 17, 2024. 

Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has in part shown good cause for a trial continuance because of counsel for Defendant’s impacted trial calendar pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

·         The trial date, currently set for May 1, 2023, is continued to July 14, 2023, at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for April 17, 2023, is continued to June 29, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

·         All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall remain based upon the trial date of May 1, 2023. [1]

·         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.