SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On May 25, 2021, Plaintiff Noli Alberto (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants CalPERS, FSP - South Flower Street Associates, Richard C. Lewis, and Allied Universal Executive Protection, Intelligence Services, Inc., and Does 1 to 50 for damages arising from an assault and battery, alleging that defendants failed to provide adequate security to protect Plaintiff on the premises. Plaintiff filed amendments to complaint naming Allid Universal Topco, LLC as Doe 1, Universal Protection Serve, LP as Doe 2, ABM V Parking Services, LLC as Doe 3, and ABM Industry Groups, LLC as Doe 4.  

Since the filing of the complaint, Plaintiff has dismissed defendants Allied Universal Executive Protection, Intelligence Services, Inc., Richard C. Lewis, and CalPERS. 

Defendant FSP - South Flower Street Associates (“FSP”) now brings the instant motion requesting the Court to continue the trial to a date no earlier than December 9, 2024 in order for its November 4, 2024 motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) to be timely heard prior to trial. Trial is currently set for May 17, 2024. Defendant ABM Industry Groups, LLC (“ABM”) joins the motion, arguing it intends to file a MSJ and has reserved a hearing date for the motion.  

 

As of January 9, 2023, no opposition was filed.  

 

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).) 

Here, FSP asserts that November 4, 2024 was the earliest available hearing date for its MSJ, but that it is after the current trial date. FSP, thus, seeks to continue the trial date to allow its MSJ to be heard. 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.)  FSP filed its MSJ on October 4, 2023. FSP filed the instant motion nearly five months before the current trial date as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial, and this is the fourth request for a trial continuance. The case matter is not yet old. Further, there are no alternative means identified to address the issue, and there is otherwise no prejudice shown to any party if trial is continued, especially as no party opposes the motion. Therefore, FSP establishes good cause for the continuance.  

 

Based on the foregoing, FSP’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED.  The May 17, 2024 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The May 3, 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.  

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.