Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV21261, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21261    Hearing Date: December 19, 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

MOTION

Defendant Macerich Management Company (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, which is currently set for December 28, 2023, to at least thirty days after March 1, 2024.  Plaintiff Yajaira Hernandez has not filed a motion in 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 March 1, 2024.  Defendant relies on the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, John M. Kennedy (Counsel).  Counsel states on September 21, 2022, Defendant reserved the first available MSJ/MSA hearing date which was March 1, 2024, two months after the current trial date.  (Declaration of John M. Kennedy, ¶ 5.)  Defendant argues it is entitled to have its motion for summary judgment heard thirty days prior to trial.

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 December 28, 2023, is continued to April 23, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for December 14, 2023, is continued to  April 9, 2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

   

• 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. 

   

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