Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV45207, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45207    Hearing Date: April 27, 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

Cross-Defendants Latham Robertson and Frank Borders (collectively, Cross-Defendants) move to continue the trial, including all related dates and deadlines in this matter, which is currently set for June 9, 2023, to a new date convenient for this Court after December 9, 2023.  Defendant City of Glendale (City) and Defendant Cao Son Do (Do) join in Cross-Defendants’ motion.   Plaintiff has not filed an 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, Cross-Defendants argue there is good cause for a trial continuance to allow the motions for summary judgment set for hearing on separate dates for Cross-Defendants, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant, to be heard by the Court.  Cross-Defendants advance the declaration of their counsel, Joshua G. Glocer (Glocer), in support of the instant motion.  Glocer avers that the Court granted Cross-Complainant’s motion to deem request for admissions propounded on Plaintiff admitted on December 16, 2022.  (See Declaration of Joshua G. Glocer, ¶ 6.)  Glocer explains that on February 8, 2023, he reserved the earliest available hearing dates for Cross-Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, July 11 and July 12, 2024.  (See Declaration of Joshua G. Glocer, ¶ 7.) 

Moreover, Counsel for City informed Glocer that it also intended to file a motion for summary judgment based on the same request for admissions deemed admitted by the Court on December 16, 2022.  (See Declaration of Joshua G. Glocer, ¶ 9.)  City’s motion for summary judgment is set for hearing on November 9, 2023.  (See Declaration of Joshua G. Glocer, ¶ 9.)  Do’s motion for summary judgment is set for hearing on January 2, 2024.  (See Declaration of Joshua G. Glocer, ¶ 9.)  Glocer further states that Cross-Defendants’ trial counsel has trials set for May 30, June 5, and June 12, 2023 which will likely go forward and conflict with the trial in the instant action.  (See Declaration of Joshua G. Glocer, ¶ 11.)  In addition, Glocer contends there remains critical outstanding discovery which the parties anticipate being able to complete within four to five months.  (See Declaration of Joshua G. Glocer, ¶ 12.)  Finally, there have been no other trial continuances.  (See Declaration of Joshua G. Glocer, ¶ 10.) 

The Court finds that Cross-Defendants have shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants, Cross-Defendants’ motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

·         The trial date, currently set for June 9, 2023, is continued to December 20, 2023, at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for May 26, 2023, is continued to December 6, 2023 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 December 20, 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. 

Cross-Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.