Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 23NWCV00614, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00614    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: F

LARA v. PARSEC, INC.

CASE NO.:  23NWCV00614

HEARING:   11/21/24

Defendant PARSEC, INC.’s unopposed motion to continue trial and all trial-related dates is GRANTED.  All pre-trial cut-off dates will correspond with the new trial date.

Moving Party to give notice.

No Opposition(s) filed as of November 21, 2024. Due by November 7, 2024. (CCP §1005(b).)

This personal injury action concerning a motor vehicle incident occurring in the parking lot of 12007 Los Nietos Road, Santa Fe Springs, California, was filed by Plaintiff CHARLIE LARA (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants PARSEC, INC. (“Defendant”) and DOES 1-25 on February 27, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that he was traversing on foot when he was impacted by a vehicle maintained, controlled, driven, and operated by Defendants.

On June 5, 2024, Plaintiff passed away. To date, no successor in interest has substituted into the action. On October 16, 2024, Defendant timely filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, on the basis that the Deceased Plaintiff lacks capacity to sue. Unfortunately, due to Dept. C’s congested calendar, Defendant is unable to secure a hearing date in advance of trial. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on February 10, 2025, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is scheduled to be heard on May 27, 2025.

The Court notes that the following motions are also scheduled to be heard after trial: Motion to Amend the Complaint to Substitute Sylvia Lara, Successor-in-Interest to Charlie Lara on April 29, 2025; and Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer on June 12, 2025. 

Defendant now moves to continue trial for a period of approximately five (5) months “due to the Court’s inability to advance the hearing date for Parsec’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues…to any date that would satisfy both the applicable notice and ‘cutoff’ provisions indicated in [CCP §] 437c(a).).” (Motion 2:1-5.)

The Motion is unopposed.

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  Circumstances that may indicate good cause include… …. (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances… (6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)

The Court, in making its determination to continue the trial should consider the following factors: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The unavailability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(d).)

Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication was timely filed and served per Code in accordance with current trial date. The only reason that the Motion cannot be heard before the current trial is due to the congestion of this Court’s law and motion calendar. Moreover, a trial continuance is also warranted to accommodate the potential substitution of a successor-in-interest into the action.

The Court finds that a trial continuance to or around July 28, 2025 (depending on the Court and parties’ availabilities) is reasonable. All pre-trial deadlines will correspond with the new trial date. The Court will confer with the parties at the hearing in order to select the new FSC and trial dates.