Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV30186, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30186    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Anne McLellan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Temple City (the “City”), et al. for damages relating to Plaintiff’s alleged trip and fall on a defective stair she encountered walking on the steps of a jungle gym.  The City has filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity/contribution, express indemnity, and declaratory relief against Herald Christian Health Center (“Herald”).  Trial is currently set for June 5, 2023. 

At this time, Cross-Defendant Herald moves for an order specially setting its motion for summary judgment for hearing for before May 5, 2023.  Alternatively, Herald seeks to continue the current trial date to at least 30 days after December 12, 2023, which is when Herald’s summary judgment motion is currently set for hearing.    

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, Herald asserts that it timely filed and served its motion for summary judgment directed at the City’s cross-complaint on February 17, 2023, but the first available hearing date for the motion was December 12, 2023.  Herald contends there is thus good cause to specially set the hearing for its summary judgment motion for before the current trial date, or to continue the trial date to allow its motion to be heard. 

The City’s counsel filed a declaration providing that the City does not oppose a trial continuance.  The City states that it has reserved its own summary judgment hearing date for January 19, 2024, so a continuance will allow its motion to be heard and discovery to be completed. 

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff does not oppose the request to specially set the hearing for Herald’s summary judgment motion.  Plaintiff, however, opposes continuing the trial date.  Plaintiff contends that she will be prejudiced if the trial date is continued because she has been waiting for her day in court.  Plaintiff’s counsel further requests that the Court bifurcate the City’s cross-complaint against Herald from Plaintiff’s underlying action against the City. 

In reply, Herald argues only that bifurcation is inappropriate in this case. 

As to the request to advance the hearing date on Herald’s 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 advance 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, Herald timely filed its motion for summary judgment, but Herald’s inability to have the motion heard is due to the Court’s calendar.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.  Although Plaintiff contends she will be prejudiced if the trial date is continued, the only prejudice identified by Plaintiff is that she will have to wait longer for trial.  Further, concerning the request to bifurcate the cross-complaint from the complaint made in Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration, (Opp. DeSantis Decl. ¶ 4, 18), Plaintiff does not establish that bifurcation is appropriate at this time. 

Herald’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The June 5, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The May 22, 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. 

Herald 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 21^st day of March 2023