Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 19STCV28059 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV28059, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV28059 Hearing Date: March 16, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendants Laramar Urban Neighborhood Management Services, LLC and Urban Neighborhood Los Angeles Mb Facility, LLC’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to July 26, 2023. Discovery and motions cutoff dates are to track the new trial date.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation): (1) unavailability of trial counsel or witnesses due to “death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”; (2) the addition of a new party depriving the new party (or other parties) from conducting discovery and preparing for trial; (3) “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts”; or (4) “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case” preventing it from being ready for trial. (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)

Other relevant considerations may include: “(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.” (Id., Rule 3.1332(d).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings. In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.)

Discussion

Defendants move to continue trial to August 14, 2023. They argue that they prepared their motions for summary judgment (MSJs) but when they went to reserve a hearing date, the first available dates were May 10, 2024 and May 13, 2024, over a year after the current trial date of May 8, 2023. Defendants argue that a court may not refuse to hear a timely filed and served summary judgment motion that complies with the requirements set forth in CCP section 437c. The prior continuations of the trial date cannot not preclude Defendants timely motions which adhere to the filing deadlines of the May 8, 2023 trial date. Defendants’ motions to advance their MSJs are set to be heard in this department on March 24, 2023.

Plaintiff argues there have been five trial continuances in this matter, and never once did Defendants attempt to file their MSJs then. Plaintiff argues that Defendants were not diligent in filing their MSJ. Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to timely file their MSJs prior to each trial continuance, and never once disclosed to the Court of Plaintiff that they intended to file an MSJ, and instead negotiated continuances based on other reasons. Plaintiff contends she would be prejudiced by another trial continuance as this case was filed 3 and a half years ago.

While it is not clear why Defendants did not file their MSJs in the three and a half years since the complaint was filed in this matter, it is well established that a court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion that is timely filed.¿ (Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court¿(1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 919¿[“We are asked to determine whether the trial court may refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.¿We determine it may not”]; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 530¿[“We are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions.”].)¿¿

Because the MSJs are timely filed in accordance with the current trial date, but due to the Court’s congested calendar, Defendants could not reserve a hearing date 30 days before the trial date currently set in this matter, the Court finds it must continue trial as a matter of law under Sentry and Wells Fargo. Thus, the motion is granted. Trial is continued to July 26, 2023. The Court will rule on the motions to specially set the MSJs on March 24, 2023.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to July 26, 2023. Discovery and motions cutoff dates are to track the new trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.