Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 19STCV39221, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19STCV39221    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

SHERMAN VICKERS, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

MARIA ALEXANDRA VITAKIS, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 19STCV39221 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

February 20, 2024 

 

I. Background 

On October 30, 2019, Plaintiff Sherman Vickers (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Maria Alexandra Vitakis (“Defendant”) for damages arising from an automobile collision. Trial is currently set for April 30, 2024.   

Defendant requests the Court to continue the trial date and all related dates to December 10, 2024, or a date thereafter, in order for its motion for her summary judgment (“MSJ”) to be heard prior to trial.  

Plaintiff, in pro per, opposes the motion. Defendant filed a reply. 

 

II. Trial Continuance 

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance 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; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).) 

Defendant asserts she timely filed and served her MSJ on January 8, 2024, which is approximately 113 days before trial. However, Defendant avers that October 8, 2024 was the earliest available hearing date for the MSJ, but that it is after the current trial date. Defendant, thus, seeks to continue the trial date to allow the MSJ to be heard. Alternatively, Defendant requests the Court specially set the MSJ to be heard between March 28, 2024 and March 29, 2024.  

In opposition, Plaintiff appears to allude to a stay on the action.  

Defendant, in reply, contends Plaintiff had filed an erroneous appeal, which previously stayed the action. At the TSC on October 12, 2023, Defendant avers this Court lifted the stay, wherein the April 30, 2024 trial date was set. On December 28, 2023, the Second Appellate District dismissed the appeal. 

Here, there is a good cause to continue the trial date. This matter is no longer stayed. Defendant filed her MSJ on January 8, 2024, and a trial court cannot refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of CCP § 437c. (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918. 919.) Furthermore, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial on January 18, 2024, which is three and a half months before the current trial date, as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial. There have been no prior requests for a trial continuance. There are no alternative means identified to address these issues, and there is otherwise no prejudice shown to any party if trial is continued. Therefore, Defendant establishes good cause for the continuance. The alternative request to specially set the MSJ hearing date is denied.  

 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED.  The October 8, 2024 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The April 16, 2024 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. Given the age of the case, the Court will not be inclined to grant any further continuances. The parties must plan all discovery and trial preparation accordingly.   

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 16th day of February 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court