SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On April 19, 2022, Plaintiff Anush Khachaturyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Montebello and The California Department of Transportation for injuries relating to a tree falling on Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s vehicle. Trial is currently set for February 14, 2024.   

Defendant The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, erroneously sued as The California Department of Transportation, (“Defendant”) now moves to continue the current trial date and all related dates to November 11, 2024 or a date thereafter to allow its motion for summary judgment to be heard prior to trial. Defense counsel also avers a continuance is necessary because trial counsel is unavailable for the current trial date, and that the additional time will allow the parties to mediate.  

Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant 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, Defendant filed its Answer on June 8, 2022. In August 2023, Defendant reserved the earliest available hearing date of October 11, 2024 for its motion for summary judgment, which is eight months after the current trial date. Additionally, Defendant avers its counsel will “likely be unavailable” for the current trial date because of two additional cases, one set for trial on January 29, 2024 and the other set for trial on February 20, 2024. Lastly, Defendant argues the parties have engaged in setting up mediation to possibly resolve the matter, and the continuance will allow the parties to attend mediation. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that defense counsel and its expert conducted a site inspection of the subject fallen tree on October 26, 2022, yet waited more than a year to reserve a hearing date, and to seek to continue trial in order to file an untimely motion for summary judgment.  

In reply, Defendant argues there are additional facts to warrant a trial continuance, such as additional injury allegations not previously disclosed and issues over the production of medical records. However, the Court will not consider new arguments on reply.  

As to the request to continue the trial date, 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, Defendant has 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.)].)  Defendant argues it was diligent in pursuing a motion for summary judgment, yet provides no details on when and what particular discovery of facts led to the determination that it could bring a meritorious motion or summary judgment. Because it is unclear whether a motion for summary judgment will actually be filed at this time, Defendant does not establish good cause for continuing the trial date on this ground. Further, trial counsel’s “likely” unavailability due to two other trials is insufficient, because the dates do not directly conflict, and Defendant provides no information on the estimated length of those two other trials for there to be a finding of probable or actual conflict. Lastly, Defendant unilaterally posits that there are mediation discussions, as Plaintiff does not address or confirm any mediation efforts in the opposition.  

 

Based on the foregoing, the motion to continue the trial date is DENIED.  The denial is without prejudice to Defendant re-filing the motion if/when it timely files a motion for summary judgment or other reasons to establish good cause for a trial continuance.