Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV47466, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47466    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Gloria M. Tellez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc. (“Defendant”) for injuries relating to Plaintiff’s slip and fall at Defendant’s premises.  Trial is currently set for July 3, 2023. 

Defendant now moves for an order specially setting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for hearing, or alternatively, to continue the current trial date to a date after the hearing on Defendant’s summary judgment motion.  On April 4, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Rescheduled Date for Hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment providing that while Defendant initially reserved a hearing date of April 30, 2024 for its motion for summary judgment, an earlier hearing date of November 1, 2023 became available that Defendant has reserved.

Defendant’s motion is unopposed. 

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).)

Here, Defendant asserts that based on the current trial date of July 3, 2023, it timely filed and served its motion for summary judgment on March 15, 2023.  However, the earliest available hearing date at the time was April 30, 2024, which has now been rescheduled to November 1, 2023, after the current trial date.  Defendant argues that it will be prejudiced if its motion for summary judgment is not heard prior to trial.  Defendant, thus, requests that the hearing on its summary judgment motion be specially set for hearing, or that the trial date be continued to allow the motion to be heard. 

As to the request to specially set the hearing date for the summary judgment motion, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, the Personal Injury courts do not have the capacity to add hearings to their fully booked motion calendars.  The proper relief to seek is to continue trial instead of seeking to advance or shorten the hearing time.  The request to specially set the hearing date is denied. 

As to the request to continue the trial date, the court is guided by the case of Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court.  The Court therein held that a trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.  (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918. 919.)  Local rules and practices may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion. (Id.; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529.)  “We are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment.  However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions.”  (Id., at p. 530.)

In this case, Defendant timely filed its motion for summary judgment, but Defendant’s inability to have the motion heard is due to the Court’s calendar.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date to a date at least 30 days after November 1, 2023, to allow the motion for summary judgment to be heard prior to trial.

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The July 3, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The June 19, 2023 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. 

Defendant 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 2^nd day of May 2023