Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV00592, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00592    Hearing Date: September 9, 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

 

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

September 9, 2022

CASE NUMBER

22STCV00592

MOTION

Motion to Specially Set Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Continue Trial

MOVING PARTIES

Defendants City of Montebello, Thomas Charles Hebert, and Gina Skibar

OPPOSING PARTY

None

 

MOTION

 

Plaintiff Armando Jose Mendoza sued defendants Gina Skibar, City of Montebello (“City”), and Thomas Charles Hebert (“Herbert”) (collectively, “Defendants”) based on injuries Plaintiff alleges he sustained when Herbert, during the course and scope of his employment with City, ran over Plaintiff while he was sleeping in Montebello City Park. 

 

Defendants move to specially set the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) to an unspecified date.  In the alternative, Defendants move to continue the trial, which is currently set for July 6, 2023, to an unspecified date to accommodate the hearing on Defendants’ MSJ.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. 

 

Based on the Court’s impacted calendar, the Court denies in part the motion to specially set the hearing on Defendants’ MSJ and, instead, considers Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

 

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, Defendants seeks a continuance to permit Defendants’ MSJ to be timely heard before trial.  According to counsel for Defendants, Nancy P. Doumanian, Defendants have reserved the first-available date of September 18, 2023, for the hearing on their MSJ.  (Declaration of Nancy P. Doumanian, ¶ 1.)  

 

The Court finds 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 Defendants’ motion to continue trial and orders as follows: