Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV32653, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32653    Hearing Date: February 9, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

H. C. by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Jamiel Fears, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV32653 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

February 9, 2024 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Maria Estrada (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the Inglewood Unified School District (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a a steel gate closing on Plaintiff’s finger. Trial is currently set for April 3, 2024.   

Defendant requests the Court to continue the trial date and all related dates to at least 30 days after October 3, 2024, in order for its motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) to be heard prior to trial. Plaintiff opposes 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).) 

Defendant asserts it was served with Plaintiff’s complaint on June 9, 2023, and after meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding defects in the complaint, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July 31, 2023. Defendant filed its Answer to the FAC on August 30, 2023. Defendant served discovery on Plaintiff on August 30, 2023, and Plaintiff served responses on October 9, 2023. Defendant avers that October 3, 2024 was the earliest available hearing date for their MSJ, but that it is after the current trial date. Defendant, thus, seek to continue the trial date to allow their MSJ to be heard.  

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant delayed in filing its MSJ, because Defendant was aware of the specific form Plaintiff submitted to Defendant prior to discovery responses. The form is the basis for Defendant’s MSJ.  Plaintiff contends he will suffer prejudice by the continuance which can result in the loss of witnesses and testimony at trial. 

Here, there is a good cause to continue the trial date. Defendant filed its MSJ on December 1, 2023, and 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.) Furthermore, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial on December 1, 2023, which is four months before the current trial date as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial. There have been no prior requests for a trial continuance, and the case matter is not yet old. There are no alternative means identified to address these issues, and there is otherwise no prejudice shown to any party if trial is continued. Plaintiff’s argument that he will suffer prejudice by the continuance in itself, and the unspecific conjecture that it “can” result in loss of witnesses or testimony, is unavailing. Therefore, Defendant establishes good cause for the continuance.  

 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED.  The April 3, 2024 Trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The March 20, 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: 

  • 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 8th day of February 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court