Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV49234, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49234    Hearing Date: April 11, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

On December 24, 2020, Plaintiff Helen Ho, heir to Grace Ho, (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants World Oil Corporation, World Oil Marketing Company, Mathew Pakkala, #1 Auto Service, and Hui Li (collectively “Defendants”) for premises liability and negligence/negligence per se.  The action arises out of Grace Ho’s fall into an automotive repair pit located at Defendant #1 Auto Service on May 15, 2020. Grace Ho suffered injuries and eventually died on December 20, 2020. Trial is set for December 20, 2023.

On March 15, 2023, Defendant Li filed a motion to continue trial date or advance date for motion for summary judgment.  On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition.  On April 4, 2023, Defendant Li filed a reply. 

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 Li requests the Court to continue trial date or in the alternative to advance date for motion for summary judgment.  In support of the motion, Defendant Li argues good cause exists and the interests of justice are served by giving Defendant Li an opportunity to motion for summary judgment.  Specifically, the trial setting conference was conducted on January 9, 2023 and Defendant Li acted diligently less than 30 days later on February 7, 2023, to reserve a date for his motion for summary judgment.  (Motion, Brainard Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4.)  The earliest available date for the motion for summary judgment was March 16, 2024, which is after the date set for trial (December 20, 2023).  (Motion, Brainard Decl., ¶ 4.)  Thereafter, Defendant Li completed discovery, prepared necessary documents in support of the motion for summary judgment and filed the motion for summary judgment on March 8, 2023, less than 30 days after the reservation was made.  (Motion, Brainard Decl., ¶ 5.)  Further, Defendant Li’s counsel states that he could not have reserved a date and filed the motion any quicker based on his case load, obligation to secure client authority, and other legal obligations.  (Ibid.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that there is no good cause to continue the trial as Plaintiff has diligently litigated this case and should not be forced to continue trial due to Defendant Li and her counsel’s lack of diligence and litigation tactics, and because a continuance will cause prejudice to Plaintiff.  (Opposition, Zamani Decl., ¶ 27.)  Specifically, Defendant Li has been in possession of Plaintiff’s discovery responses since November 14, 2022; and all discovery requested was provided to Defendant Li almost two months prior to the January 2023 trial setting conference. (Opposition, Zamani Decl., ¶ 26.)  Had Defendant Li and her counsel been diligent in their management of this case, then then could have received a timely motion for summary judgment hearing.  (Opposition, p. 4.)  Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration also provides that at the trial setting conference on January 9, 2023, Judge Mori ruled that both parties are place on noticed that there will be no further continuances and that they are to work diligently setting motions and getting ready for trial.  (Opposition, Zamani Decl., ¶ 19.) 

In reply, Defendant Li reiterates her argues in her motion.

The relevant factors weigh in favor of a continuance.  First, trial is set for December 20, 2023, which is about nine months in the future.  Second, while there was a continuance on the Court’s own motion, there has been no prior continuance requested by Defendant Li.  Third, Defendant Li does not request a specific length of the continuance, rather she requests the opportunity for her motion for summary judgment to be heard.  Fourth, Defendant Li alternatively requests for the Court to specifically set the date for the motion for summary judgment as an alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion (the Court’s calendar was impacted).  Fifth, Plaintiff argues that she will be prejudiced if the trial date is delayed, however Plaintiff fails to articulate how a continuance will prejudice her.  On the other hand, Defendant Li will be prejudiced if the trial date is not delayed since the motion for summary judgment is set for after the current trial date, and Defendant Li acted diligently to reserve the hearing date, which was the earliest date available.  Accordingly, the Court will grant a continuance to allow the Defendant Li’s motion to be heard. 

Defendant Li’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The December 20, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The December 6, 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 Li 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 11^th  day of April 2023