I. BACKGROUND 

On June 24, 2022, plaintiff Baldomero Murillo Esquivel (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against KB Home, et al. for injuries arising from an alleged failure to secure or store construction materials and failure to provide adequate fall protection while Plaintiff was working in a deep trench/hole. On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint naming KB Home Greater Los Angeles Inc. (“KB”) as Doe 1.  

KB now bring the instant motion requesting the Court shorten the time to hear its motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) reserved for November 1, 2024, because it is set after the current trial date of July 26, 2024. KB noticed this motion for shortening/recalendaring its MSJ, and provides that it is also based on Cal. Rule of Court, rule 31332 (trial continuance).  

As of March 26, 2024, no opposition was filed.  

II. SPECIALLY SET HEARING & TRIAL CONTINUANCE 

As to KB’s request to specially set the hearing date for its MSJ, per 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. Therefore, the primary request to specially set the hearing date is DENIED. 

Although KB does not discuss trial continuance in its moving papers, the Court notes that the Notice of the motion cites to Cal. Rule of Court, rule 31332. In the interests of judicial economy, and because of the lack of opposition, the Court will continue the trial date to accommodate KB’s MSJ even though KB did not expressly discuss or request this relief in its memorandum of points and authorities. Each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) At its core, KB seeks for its MSJ to be heard prior to trial. A trial court cannot refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of CCP § 437c. (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918. 919.) KB filed its MSJ on September 5, 2023, and filed the instant motion approximately eight months before the current trial date as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial. This is the second request for a trial continuance, and this case matter is not yet old. Further, there are no alternative means identified to address these issues, and there is otherwise no prejudice shown to any party if trial is continued, especially as no party opposes the motion. Therefore, the Court finds good cause for a continuance.  

Based on the foregoing, the Court continues the trial date. The July 26, 2024 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The July 12, 2024 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 party is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: