Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV39636, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39636    Hearing Date: April 6, 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 the Vons Companies, Inc. (Defendant) moves to continue the trial,which is currently set for April 26, 2023, to a date on or after February 22, 2024.  Plaintiff Ina Rae Ruan (Plaintiff) has filed a notice of non-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 22, 2024.  Defendant relies on the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Amy W. Lewis (Counsel).  Counsel states on January 6, 2023, Defendant proceeded to reserve the first available hearing date for Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which at the time was January 22, 2024.  (Declaration of Amy W. Lewis, ¶ 4.)  Defendant argues a continuance is necessary to ensure the Motion for Summary Judgment is heard thirty days prior to trail pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (a)(3). 

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 April 26, 2023, is continued to February 29, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 32. [1] 

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for April 12, 2023, is continued to February 15, 204 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

·         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.