SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On September 10, 2021, Plaintiff Peter Wierzba (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles, Amrit Raj, and Astha Raj for injuries arising from a trip and fall over a sidewalk. Trial is currently set for March 4, 2024.   

Defendants Amrit Raj and Astha Raj (“the Rajs”) now move to continue the current trial date and all related dates by approximately 8 months to allow their motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) to be heard prior to trial.  

Plaintiff opposes the motion, and the Rajs filed a reply.   

 

II. Legal Standard 

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, the Rajs argue they have been diligent in conducting discovery, such as conducting initial written discovery, serving record subpoenas, and conducting the deposition of Plaintiff. The Rajs aver that on June 15, 2023, they sought to secure a hearing date for their MSJ, but the next available hearing date was not until August 30, 2024.  

In opposition, Plaintiff provides that he does not oppose the continuance because the parties have agreed to private mediation, and the mediator is only available after the current trial date. However, Plaintiff opposes the motion as it relates to the filing of a MSJ, arguing that the Rajs delayed in seeking to file their MSJ. Plaintiff contends the Rajs have not been diligent in conducting discovery because several depositions still need to be conducted. 

In reply, the Rajs provide that the unavailability of Defendant City of Los Angeles’ (“City”) person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) has persisted for nearly an entire year, and that the Rajs were led to believe by Plaintiff’s counsel that a MSJ may not be necessary after deposition of the City’s PMK. The Rajs contend that Plaintiff’s counsel indicated he may voluntarily dismiss the Rajs pending deposition of the City’s PMK. The Rajs argue the City’s PMK is important to the Raj’s MSJ, because the testimony will assist in addressing the Rajs alleged duty regarding the condition of the subject sidewalk.  

The Rajs filed their Answer on November 23, 2021. Since then, it is unclear what necessary outstanding discovery remains. Both parties are vague in terms of when and what discovery has already been completed, and vague as to the further discovery sought when Trial is to commence in a little over one month from the current date. Further, the Court will not consider the Rajs new arguments raised on reply.  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, the Rajs have not filed a motion for summary judgment 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.)].)  The Rajs argue they were diligent in pursuing a motion for summary judgment, yet provide no details on when and what particular discovery of facts led to the determination that it could bring a meritorious motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, the time to file a MSJ has long passed, absent a stipulation between the parties. (CCP § 437c.) Thus, the Rajs do not establish good cause for continuing the trial date on this ground. Further, although Plaintiff does not oppose a trial continuance on the grounds of mediator availability, Plaintiff provides no information as to any agreed upon mediation date for the Court’s consideration in moving the trial date.  

Based on the foregoing, the motion to continue the trial date is DENIED. In terms of accommodating a mediation date, the parties are ordered to meet and confer on a stipulation to continue the trial date.  

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.