Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV00972, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00972    Hearing Date: April 10, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Danielle Hemple (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Bristol Farms (“Defendant”) for injuries relating to Plaintiff’s slip and fall in Defendant’s store.  Plaintiff alleges that on February 3, 2019, Defendant allowed rainwater to accumulate in the front register area of its store, and that Plaintiff slipped on the wet floor as she was exiting the register area and walking towards the exit doors.  Trial is currently set for January 24, 2024. 

Defendant now moves to continue the current trial date for approximately 60 days to late March 2024 to allow its motion for summary adjudication to be heard prior to trial.  Alternatively, Defendant requests an order advancing the hearing date of its summary adjudication motion.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant 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).)

Here, Defendant provides that it intends to file a motion for summary adjudication as to the prayer for punitive damages in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which was filed on February 7, 2023.  Defendant states that it reserved the earliest available hearing date of January 17, 2024, for its motion, which is only one week before trial.  Defendant asserts that it has filed a motion to strike the punitive damages set for hearing for April 17, 2023, and if the motion to strike is denied, Defendant has good faith grounds for moving for summary adjudication as to punitive damages prayer.  Further, Defendant asserts that a later trial date will promote more meaningful settlement discussions. 

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that she has no objection to the hearing date on the motion for summary adjudication being advanced or to the motion going forward as scheduled on January 17, 2024.  Further, Plaintiff argues that there is a likelihood that Defendant may never file a dispositive motion on punitive damages because of the evidence supporting the request. 

In reply, Defendant contends that Plaintiff fails to address Defendant’s arguments concerning how additional time between the hearing on the summary adjudication motion and trial would foster more meaningful settlement discussions, and that Plaintiff’s arguments that Defendant may never file the motion is speculative. 

As to the request to advance the hearing date, 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 request to advance the hearing date is denied. 

As to the request to continue the trial date, a trial court cannot refuse to hear a summary adjudication motion filed within the time limits of CCP § 437c.  (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918. 919.)  However, to date, Defendant has not filed a motion for summary adjudication in this matter.  (Cole v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2022) 2022 WL 17999483 at *2 [“But the fact remains that the motion was timely filed, and calendaring issues are not a basis on which the trial court can refuse to hear a timely filed summary judgment motion, absent an indication that it was defective under section 437c.” (Emphasis Added.)].)  Defendant provides that it currently has a motion to strike the punitive damages request from Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint set for April 17, 2023, and thus, it is speculative whether Defendant will actually file a motion for summary adjudication as to the punitive damages request in the future.  Because it is unclear whether a motion for summary adjudication will actually be filed at this time, Defendant does not establish good cause for continuing the trial date.   

The motion to continue the trial date is denied.  The denial is without prejudice to Defendant re-filing the motion if/when it timely files a motion for summary adjudication. 

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 10^th day of April 2023