Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV45249, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45249    Hearing Date: January 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

 

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

January 27, 2023

CASE NUMBER

21STCV45249

MOTION

Motion to Continue Trial; or in the Alternative, Shorten Time for Motion for Summary Judgment

MOVING PARTIES

Defendant/Cross-Defendant John Batara

OPPOSING PARTY

None

 

MOTION

 

Defendant/Cross-Defendant John Batara (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, and all trial-related dates, which is currently set for June 12, 2023 to 30 days after November 1, 2023.  In the alternative Defendant seeks for an order shortening time for Defendant/Cross-Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment hearing date to at least thirty days before the trial date, which is set for June 12, 2023.  The motion is unopposed.    

 

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 November 1, 2023.  Defendant relies on the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Danielle M. Johnson (Counsel).  Counsel states Defendant/Cross-Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is not scheduled to be heard by the Court until November 1, 2023, which is nearly five months after the current trial date of June 12, 2023.  (Declaration of Danielle M. Johnson, ¶ 5.)  Defendant argues he is entitled to have his motion for summary judgment heard thirty days prior to trail pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (a)(3).  (Declaration of Danielle M. Johnson, ¶ 8.)

 

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 all trial related dates and orders as follows: