SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On August 2, 2022, Victor Alfaro (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Kelly Solis, Susan Wright, and Kirk Wright for damages arising from dog bite. The current trial date is January 30, 2024.  

Defendants Susan Wright and Kirk Wright (“Wright Defendants”) now move to continue the current trial date to February 24, 2025 in order for their Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), currently set to be heard on November 8, 2024, may be heard prior to trial. Alternatively, the Wright Defendants request the Court advance their MSJ hearing date. 

Any opposition was due on or before October 26, 2023; none was filed.  

 

II. Legal Standard 

A. Specially Set Hearing 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1335 states as follows:¿¿¿ 

¿ (a) Noticed motion or application required¿¿ 

A party seeking to advance, specially set, or reset a case for trial must make this request by noticed motion or ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division.¿¿ 

(b) Grounds for motion or application¿¿ 

The request may be granted only upon an affirmative showing by the moving party of good cause based on a declaration served and filed with the motion or application.¿¿ 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1335(a)-(b) (emphasis in original).)¿¿ 

A party may move for summary judgment “at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).)¿ Notice of the motion and supporting papers must be served on all other parties at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.¿ (Id., subd. (a)(2).)¿ The motion must be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.¿ (Id., subd. (a)(3).)¿¿¿ 

“The importance of providing the minimum statutory notice of a summary judgment hearing cannot be overemphasized.”¿ (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1262 (Robinson).)¿ “Because it is potentially case dispositive and usually requires considerable time and effort to prepare, a summary judgment motion is perhaps the most important pretrial motion in a civil case.”¿ (Ibid.)¿ “Therefore, the Legislature was entitled to conclude that parties should be afforded a minimum notice period for the hearing of summary judgment motions so that they have sufficient time to assemble the relevant evidence and prepare an adequate opposition.”¿ (Ibid.)¿ Thus, without the parties’ consent, “in light of the express statutory language, trial courts do not have authority to shorten the minimum notice period for summary judgment hearings.”¿ (Ibid.)¿¿¿¿ 

B. 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).) 

 

III. Discussion 

The Wright Defendants assert that November 8, 2024 was the earliest available hearing date through the Court’s online reservation system. The Wright Defendants request trial and all trial related dates be continued to a few months after the MSJ hearing so that they may avoid engaging in expensive expert discovery, should the MSJ be granted. Additionally, in the alternative, the Wright Defendants request the Court to specially set the MSJ hearing. The Wright Defendants filed their MSJ on October 13, 2023. The Wright Defendants argue they will suffer great prejudice if their MSJ cannot be heard.   

As to the request to specially set the hearing date for their 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 alternative request to specially set the hearing date is denied. 

However, the Wright Defendants establish good cause for the continuance in light of the unavailability of hearing dates prior to the current trial date. This is the first request for trial continuance. 

The Wright Defendants’ motion to continue trial is therefore GRANTED.  The January 30, 2024 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The January 16, 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. The parties must plan all discovery and trial preparation accordingly.