Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22SMCV02041, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02041    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Justin Shelton (“Plaintiff”) moves to continue the trial date by a couple of weeks, so that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication, currently scheduled for May 16, 2024, complies with the requirement that the motion be heard at least thirty days prior to trial, which is currently scheduled for June 10, 2024. 

Defendant WIB Holdings, LLC has filed a late opposition, to which Plaintiff objects and replies. 

DEFENDANT’S LATE-FILED OPPOSITION

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) provides, “All papers opposing a motion […] shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days, and all reply papers at least five court days before the hearing.”  The court has discretion whether to consider late-filed papers.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).)  

The hearing in this matter is set for March 21, making Opposition papers due by March 8, and Reply papers due by March 14.

            On March 12, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition.  On March 14, Defendant filed an untimely opposition, with an attorney declaration indicating that counsel inadvertently mis-calendared the deadline to file an opposition.  Defendant served the opposition papers on Plaintiff on March 13, and Plaintiff filed an objection and reply to Defendant’s late opposition on March 13, before the Opposition was filed. 

            While the Court agrees Plaintiff that better management of the upcoming briefing in this case would have prevented the late filing, the Court finds no prejudice here, as Plaintiff still filed the Reply before the March 14 deadline, and before Defendant’s Opposition was even filed. 

Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion and considers the late-filed opposition brief.

ANALYSIS

            Trial and Discovery Cut-Off Dates

            California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c), provides:

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:

(1)  The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2)  The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3)  The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4)  The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(5)  The addition of a new party if:

(A)  The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or

(B)  The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;

(6)  A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7)  A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.

Factors the Court considers in ruling on a motion for continuance include:

(1)  The proximity of the trial date;

(2)  Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3)  The length of the continuance requested;

(4)  The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5)  The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6)  If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7)  The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8)  Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9)  Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10)  Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11)  Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

(Rule 3.1332(d).)

            Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in timely reserving a hearing date for his motion for summary adjudication does not constitute good cause to continue the trial date.  (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) 

Nor does it constitute good cause for the Court to waive the 30-day deadline of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c as an “alternative means to address the problem.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c) [“The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise”])

Good cause to waive the 30-day deadline could theoretically exist, if Plaintiff’s pending motion for summary adjudication would promote judicial economy or “eliminate the need for trial on certain claims or narrow the triable issues.” (Reply at pp. 4-5.)  However, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s pending motion for summary adjudication would promote judicial economy or streamline the issues for trial here. 

            Plaintiff’s operative complaint alleges five causes of action: (1) violations of Civil Code section 1950.5 (unlawful retention of security deposit); (2) violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 (predicated on violations of section 1950.5 and 1953); (3) breach of the written residential lease agreement (which allegedly required Defendant to return the security deposit consistent with section 1950.5); (4) negligence (breaching the duty to not violate section 1950.5); and (5) conversion (of the security deposit). 

            Despite predicating all five of Plaintiff’s causes of action on violations of Section 1950.5, Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication only as to the second and third causes of action.  Thus, even if Plaintiff prevails, the motion requires the Court to examine all the purported violations of Sections 1950.5 and 1953 in connection with the motion for summary judgment, and then a trier of fact to reexamine all those issues again in connection with the remaining causes of action.  As a result, regardless of whether Plaintiff prevails, the Motion for Summary Adjudication is not structured in a manner that would promote judicial economy or narrow the triable issues.    

Moreover, the references to declaratory relief in Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication suggest Plaintiff seeks resolution of a cause of action that exists only in a version of the complaint Plaintiff never filed. 

On August 24, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file and serve the proposed amended complaint on or before September 7, 2023, but Plaintiff never filed it.  (See August 24, 2023 Minute Order.)  The proposed first amended complaint attached to Plaintiff’s motion for leave alleges a new third cause of action for Declaratory Relief for Violation of Civil Code Section 1953, not previously pleaded. 

Thus, the references to declaratory relief in Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication suggest that Plaintiff seeks to adjudicate a cause of action that does not exist.[1]  As such, the motion for summary adjudication would not promote judicial economy or narrow the triable issues for the additional reason that it seeks resolution of issues not pleaded.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Finding Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating good cause for the requested continuance, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to continue the trial date. 

The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.

DATED:  March 21, 2024                                                      ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court