SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff Maria Estrada (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the City of Los Angeles for damages arising from a trip and fall over a sidewalk. On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed amendments to complaint naming Breck R. Nichols (“Nichols”) as Doe 1 and Paola A. Sequeira (“Sequeira”) as Doe 2. Trial is currently set for December 26, 2023.   

Defendants Nichols and Sequeira now bring the instant motion requesting the Court to continue the trial date to October 28, 2024, or a date thereafter, in order for their motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) to be heard prior to trial.  

No parties oppose the motion.  

 

II. Trial Continuance 

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, Nichols and Sequeira assert that July 26, 2024 was the earliest available hearing date for their MSJ, but that it is after the current trial date. Nichols and Sequeira, thus, seek to continue the trial date to allow their MSJ to be heard. 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.)  Nichols and Sequeira filed their MSJ on September 19, 2023. Nichols and Sequeira filed this motion three months before the current trial date as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial, and there have been no prior requests for a trial continuance. The 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, Nichols and Sequeira establish good cause for the continuance.  

 

Based on the foregoing, moving parties’ motion to continue trial is GRANTED.  The December 26, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The December 12, 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 Defendants are ordered to give notice.