Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00526, Date: 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV00526    Hearing Date: January 11, 2023    Dept: G

Defendant City of Baldwin Park’s Motion to Continue Trial

Respondent: Plaintiff Independent Cities Risk Management Authority

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant City of Baldwin Park’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. Accordingly, the March 28, 2023, date for jury trial in this action is continued 180 days. 

The court will set a new trial date and a new final status conference date at the hearing on January 11, 2023.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action arising from a municipal insurance agreement. Plaintiff Independent Cities Risk Management Authority is a joint powers authority formed for purposes of self-insurance pooling among its members. Plaintiff required members to pay for deficiencies in funding for certain liability program years and gave members the option of paying the assessment over a ten-year period. At the time of this assessment, Defendant City of Baldwin Park was a member of Plaintiff. Defendant elected to make installment payments and tendered the first two payments in 2018 and 2019.

On July 1, 2019, Defendant terminated its membership with Plaintiff. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s bylaws, Plaintiff then invoiced Defendant for $114,935 in exit fees due August 16, 2019; $57,468 in exit fees due August 12, 2020; and $131,234.84 in assessment payments due August 12, 2020. Plaintiff then alleges Defendant refused to pay the invoiced amounts.

On June 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1-50, alleging (1) breach of contract and (2) declaratory relief.

On December 14, 2022, Defendant filed an ex parte application for an order to continue trial or an order shortening time to hear a motion to continue trial. On December 15, the court granted Defendant’s motion and set a hearing for the motion to continue trial on January 11, 2023.

A final status conference is presently set for March 20, 2023, and a jury trial is presently set for March 28.

ANALYSIS

Defendant requests a 180-day continuance of the March 28, 2023, trial date. For the following reasons, the court finds merit with the request.

Legal Standard

Because trial dates are firm and all parties and counsel must regard the set trial date as certain, continuances are disfavored. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1332(a), (c).) Therefore, “[t]he court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance” which include the following: “(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other circumstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) The addition of a new party . . . ; (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.” (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1332(c).)¿ 

The court may also 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 availability 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1332(d).)¿ 

“Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.” (In re Marriage of Falcone &¿Fyke¿(2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.) ¿Ruling on trial continuances involves court discretion, based upon all of the relevant facts and circumstances, the specific factors enumerated in¿Rule¿3.1332,¿and all competing interests guided by the strong public policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits. (Oliveros¿v. County of Los Angeles¿(2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1398-1399.)

Discussion

In this case, Defendant argues for a continuance of trial based on a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case that will not allow it to be ready to proceed to trial. Defendant claims this change is another trial court’s decision on October 7, 2022, that found the disputed assessment to be improper. (Corzano Decl., Ex. 1.) In that case, the court found the assessment to be improper because Plaintiff did not conduct an actuarial soundness review of the proposed assessment as required by Plaintiff’s governing documents. (Corzano Decl., Ex. 1, p. 5.) However, that court also noted the injunction in place would only apply to Plaintiff and the City of Redondo Beach, not other non-parties who are members of Plaintiff. (Conley Decl., Ex. C, p. 1.) As a result of this decision, Defendant argues a continuance is necessary for Defendant to raise new issues and affirmative defenses that require Defendant to amend pleadings and conduct further discovery.

The court finds Defendant has demonstrated good cause. While trial was scheduled to begin more than three months from now, the trial date was set in an April 18, 2022, minute order.  No previous continuances have been granted. Also, the court finds the requested continuance of 180 days is reasonable and that Plaintiff has not demonstrated any prejudice to trial being continued. Instead, Plaintiff argues the merits of whether Defendant will be able to establish issue preclusion or the affirmative defense of mistake.  The court will not prematurely rule on the merits of these potential defenses, until properly at issue before the court.  Additionally, the court recognizes that issues regarding the validity and amount of the assessment affect the payment installment contract upon which Plaintiff’s breach of contract action is based as well as Defendant’s potential defenses.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to continue trial.