Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV01617, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01617    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff Miriam Berliner (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Bank of America, Bank of America Corporation, and Bank of America National Association  for damages arising from a trip and fall outside the front entrance of a Bank of America located at 8720 Balboa Boulevard, Northridge, California, CA 91325.  Trial in this matter is currently set for November 3, 2023.

            On June 14, 2022, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (erroneously sued as Bank of America, Bank of America Corporation, and Bank of America National Association) filed a cross-complaint against Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc (“Cross-Defendant JLL”).  On August 5, 2022, Cross-Defendant JLL filed a cross-complaint against J.H. O’Brien Landscaping & Maintenance, Inc (“Cross-Defendant JH O’Brien”).  On September 27, 2022, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“Defendant BANA) filed an amendment to cross-complaint naming Cross-Defendant JH O’Brien, Inc. as Roe 1.

            Defendant BANA now moves to continue the current trial date to a date after its motions for summary adjudication against Cross-Defendants JLL and JH O’Brien, which are set to be heard on April 3, 2024 and April 4, 2024.  The motion is unopposed.

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 BANA states that it timely filed and served two motions for summary adjudication against Cross-Defendants JLL and JH O’Brien on February 24, 2023, but the earliest available hearing dates on the Court’s calendar were April 3, 2024 and April 4, 2024.  (Ellyin Decl., ¶ 3.) The Court denied Defendant BANA’s Ex Parte Application to Advance and Specially Set the hearing dates of the motions for summary adjudication and instructed Defendant BANA to file a motion to continue the trial date instead.  (Id. at ¶ 5.)  Defendant BANA will be irreparably harmed and prejudiced if its motions for summary adjudication are not heard.  (Id. at ¶ 6.)  There is no known prejudice to Plaintiff by a continuance of both the trial and all related pre-trial dates.  (Id. at ¶ 7.) 

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, Defendant BANA has timely filed its motions for summary adjudication, but Defendant BANA’s inability to have the motions heard is due to the Court’s calendar.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date.  Moreover, it does not appear that other parties would be prejudiced by a trial continuance as the motion is unopposed.

Defendant BANA’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The November 3, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The October 20, 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. 

Moving 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 15^th day of May 2023