Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 23STCV09549, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09549    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

LINDA WALSH, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

MICHELLE HOUGH, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 23STCV09549 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

April 25, 2024 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Linda Walsh (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Michelle Hough and Gregory Hough (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision. The trial date is currently set for October 24, 2024.   

Defendants now move to continue the current trial date and all related dates to June 24, 2025 to allow their motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”), currently reserved for December 10, 2024, to be heard prior to trial. The motion is unopposed. 

 

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).) 

 

III. DISCUSSION 

Defendants argue they were unable to obtain a timely reservation or a hearing date on their motion for summary judgment, and seek a trial continuance to accommodate the motion.  

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, Defendants have 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.)].)  Defendants argue they were diligent in conducting discovery, but that necessary discovery will not be completed by the discovery cut-off date. However, Defendants fail to provide details on what necessary discovery remains in order for them to file their motion for summary judgment. Further, there is no specification as to what particular discovery of facts, or remaining issues, would lead Defendants to determine that they could bring a meritorious motion for summary judgment. Defendants do not establish good cause for continuing the trial date on this ground.  

 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the motion to continue the trial date is DENIED without prejudice as to Defendants re-filing the motion should they file their motion for summary judgment, or otherwise are able to articulate a justifiable basis for a continuance.  

 

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 24th day of April 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court