Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV00141, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00141    Hearing Date: May 22, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

This order concerns Defendants’ motion to continue trial from July 3, 2023 to October 2, 2023.

This is a slip and fall action alleging premises liability and negligence. On January  3, 2022, Plaintiff Juana Martinez Figueroa filed a complaint against Defendants Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and DOES 1-25. Trial in this matter is currently set for July 3, 2023. 

Relevant to this motion, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is set to be heard on July 18, 2023, two weeks after trial is currently set to begin.

Defendants now move to continue the current trial date to October 2, 2023 or a date thereafter as the Court’s calendar permits to allow their motion for summary judgment to be heard. This motion is opposed. Defendants 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) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c)(1)-(7).)

Other factors to consider include: (1) the 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; (6)  If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance (10)  Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)

Defendants argue that good cause exists for the following reasons. Defendants are presently deprived of their statutory right to have a motion for summary judgment timely heard. Defendants brought the motion for summary judgment once they conducted Plaintiff’s deposition on December 5, 2022 after numerous delays. (Motion, Declaration of Joel C. Gerson (“Gerson Decl.”), ¶ 2.) Although Defendants moved swiftly to reserve a hearing date for their summary judgment motion after conducting the deposition, the earliest available hearing date was July 18, 2023, which is fifteen days after the current trial date. (Gerson Decl., ¶ 3.)  Defendants’ ex parte application to continue trial was denied on March 8, 2023 and that same day Defendants reserved the earliest available hearing date for this motion, which was May 11, 2023. (Gerson Decl., ¶ 4.) On March 13, 2023, Defendants’ counsel met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel seeking a stipulation to continue trial, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused. (Gerson Decl., ¶ 5.) There are no alternatives to resolve the summary judgment issues other than continuing trial. (Gerson Decl., ¶ 6.) Finally, there have been no prior trial continuances in this matter. (Gerson Decl., ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that good cause does not exist because Plaintiff’s December 5, 2022 deposition, on which Defendants claim their motion for summary judgment is based, was delayed due to Defendants’ own lack of diligence. Plaintiff informed Defendants that she was available for remote hearing as early as July 14, 2022 but Defendants continually noticed in person depositions. (Opposition, Exhibits A-D.) Plaintiff informed Defendants that Plaintiff is 78 years old and was cautious of participating in in-person hearings during the Covid-19 Pandemic. (Id. at Ex. E.) The parties went back and forth on scheduling dates on which the deposition could take place, eventually landing on December 5, 2022. (Id. at Ex.’s F-L.) Plaintiff contends that any significant delays in scheduling the deposition were caused by Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that alternative means exist to resolve the issues presented by Defendants motion for summary judgment in that they can settle or proceed to trial. Finally, Plaintiff contends that she will suffer irreparable harm and substantial and unjustifiable prejudice if trial is continued because she will be denied her day in court.

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.) 

The Court finds that there is good cause to continue the trial date. In this case, Defendants timely filed their motion for summary judgment, but were unable to schedule a hearing on the motion before trial due to the Court’s calendar.  Moreover, Plaintiff does not show that she will be significantly prejudiced by granting this motion. Plaintiff will not be denied her day in court. Instead, that day is simply delayed for a short period. Rather, it is Defendants who would be denied their statutory right to bring a timely motion for summary judgment if the Court were to deny this motion. Additionally, there have been no prior continuances in this action.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to continue trial to October 2, 2023 or a date thereafter is GRANTED. Defendants are 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 22^nd day of May 2023