Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 19STCV20224, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 19STCV20224, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email
the clerk at SMCdept1@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same
email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all
other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in
all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the
case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you
submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing
party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the
Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 19STCV20224 Hearing Date: June 6, 2024 Dept: 1

19STCV20224 JOEL BENJAMIN FUENTES vs TRENCORE PLASTERING, INC

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Specially Set the Trial on a Date Prior to June 10, 2024; to Continue the 5 Year Statute of Limitations Extended by Six Months (Emergency Rule 10); and to Determine the Time for Expiration of the 5 Year Statute of Limitations Date under C.C.P. § 583.310 Has Been and is Tolled While the Case is Trailing and the Parties Wait for Courtroom Availability (C.C.P. § 583.340.)

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Specially Set the Trial on a Date Prior to June 10, 2024; to Continue the 5 Year Statute of Limitations Extended by Six Months (Emergency Rule 10); and to Determine the Time for Expiration of the 5 Year Statute of Limitations Date under C.C.P. § 583.310 Has Been and is Tolled While the Case is Trailing and the Parties Wait for Courtroom Availability (C.C.P. § 583.340.) is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff raising the tolling issues in the future, if necessary to avoid the application of Code of Civil Procedure 583.360(a). Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

Background

On June 10, 2019, Joel Benjamin Fuentes filed this action against Trencore Plastering, Brix Masonry, Trencore & Brix, and Jose Quintana arising out of allegations that Plaintiff sustained head injuries when Defendants threw the large metal frame of a scaffold from the upper floors of an apartment building to the ground below.

After several orders requiring amendments to the parties’ long cause trial documents, Judge Lisa R. Jaskol issued a minute order on March 20, 2024 stating, in part, “[t]his case has been accepted as a Long Cause trial by Department 1. The case is being trailed for trial pending assignment to a Long Cause Trial court by the Master Calendar, Department 1.”

On April 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for an Order to Specially Set the Trial on a Date Prior to June 10, 2024; to Continue the 5 Year Statute of Limitations Extended by Six Months (Emergency Rule 10); and to Determine the Time for Expiration of the 5 Year Statute of Limitations Date under C.C.P. § 583.310 Has Been and is Tolled While the Case is Trailing and the Parties Wait for Courtroom Availability (C.C.P. § 583.340.).

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an order or to shorten time on the motion. On April 30, 2024, Judge Jaskol issued an order providing, in relevant part, “[t]he Court finds this matter must be heard by the Supervising Judge in Department 1, Stanley Mosk Courthouse.”

On May 1, 2024, Judge Elaine Lu issued an order denying the ex parte application.

On May 24, 2024, Judge Jaskol issued an order providing: “[a]t the direction of the Master Calendar Department, Department 1, this trial ready case is being assigned to Judge Susan Bryant-Deason, Department 8, Spring Street Courthouse for trial. Counsel and unrepresented parties are to report in person to that Department on June 11, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. for Trial Setting Conference.”

Discussion

As described in the Notice of Motion, Plaintiff’s motion seeks “an Order to specially set this case for trial on a date prior to June 10, 2024; to continue the five year statute of limitations extended by six months (Emergency Rule 10); and to determine the time for expiration of the five year statute of limitations date under C.C.P. §583.310 has been and is tolled while the case is trailing and the parties wait for courtroom availability (C.C.P. §583.340).”

Plaintiff’s request to set a trial date prior to June 10, 2024 is not supported by authority, relevant evidence, or a showing of good cause. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1335 (“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 [and] [t]he 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.”).) Plaintiff’s request to set trial prior to June 10, 2024 appears based upon the belief that the five-year deadline expires on June 10, 2024 absent a court order. As Plaintiff notes, the statute was extended by Emergency Rule 10, and as stated in Judge Lu’s order denying Plaintiff’s ex parte application for the same relief, the six-month extension under Rule 10 is automatic by operation of law and does not require a separate court order.

Judge Lu’s order on the ex parte application applies equally here: “more than 7 months remain before the period within which trial must commence under CCP section 583.310 lapses. Plaintiff has failed to identify any reason why there is any pressing need to set his case for trial before June 10, 2024. Nor has Plaintiff shown good cause why his trial should be advanced before other long-cause trials for cases older than the instant one or other long-cause trials that announced ready for trial earlier than Plaintiff did.” The Court finds no basis to specially set trial before June 10, 2024.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s request to establish tolling pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.340 to be unnecessary and premature, in addition to being more properly determined by the assigned trial judge if the dismissal statute is invoked or the trial deadline is close to expiration.

As noted above, the action has been assigned to Judge Susan Bryant-Deason, Department 8, Spring Street Courthouse for trial and a trial setting conference has been scheduled. A case cannot be dismissed based upon the deadlines provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 absent a noticed motion. (Code Civ. Proc. 583.360(a) (“An action shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on motion of the defendant, after notice to the parties, if the action is not brought to trial within the time prescribed in this article.”).) Plaintiff’s request does not appear ripe for adjudication as the five-year statute has not run and is not imminent, such that any potentially applicable tolling would be necessary to avoid dismissal, and there are no pending motions to dismiss the action.

Plaintiff solely relies upon Coe v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 88, which reviewed the trial court’s dismissal pursuant to a motion to dismiss. If, at the trial setting conference, trial is set beyond the facially applicable trial deadline, Plaintiff may object. (See Lee v. Park (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 305, 309 (“It was their obligation, as civil plaintiffs, to exercise reasonable diligence in calculating the mandatory dismissal date under section 583.310, and to request a trial date that is before the end of the statutory period.”).)

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff raising the tolling issues in the future, if necessary to avoid the application of Code of Civil Procedure 583.360(a).