Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV35134, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35134    Hearing Date: December 16, 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

MOTION

Defendant City of Claremont (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, including all related discovery deadlines and motion cut-off dates, which is currently set for March 23, 2023, to at least thirty days after January 29, 2024.  Plaintiff Kimberly Serena has not filed a motion in opposition.

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 accommodate the Motion for Summary Judgment hearing date set for January 29, 2024.  First, Defendant relies on the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Randa Derias (Counsel).  Counsel states on August 23, 2022 anticipating that Defendant will be filling a motion for summary judgment, Counsel requested her staff to reserve a date for Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  (Declaration of Randa Derias, ¶ 3.)  However, when reserving a hearing date for a motion for summary judgment, the earliest available hearing date was January 9, 2024, about 10 months after the current trial date.  (Declaration of Randa Derias, ¶3.)  Defendant argues it is entitled to have its motion for summary judgment heard thirty days prior to trail.

Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

• The trial date, currently set for March 23, 2023, is continued to February 27, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for March 9, 2023, is continued to February 13, 2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

   

• All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the new trial date of  February 27, 2024.

• 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.