Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 21STCV45331 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV45331, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45331 Hearing Date: March 17, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to June 3, 2024. Discovery and motion cutoff dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Legal Standard

Trial continuances are disfavored and may be granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause. (CRC 3.1332(c); Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Mgmt., Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1127.) Dates assigned for trial are firm, and parties and their attorneys must regard these dates as certain to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (CRC 3.1332(a).)

However, CRC, Rule 3.1332(c) states, in relevant part: “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. CRC, Rule 3.1332(c) lists several circumstances that may indicate good cause, including the unavailability of witnesses, the unavailability of parties, the unavailability or substitution of trial counsel, the addition of new parties, a party’s excused inability to obtain material evidence, or a significant, unanticipated change in the case’s status. (CRC, Rule 3.1332(c)(1)-(7).)

Further, CRC, Rule 3.1332(d) states: “In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These 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 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; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.”

Discussion

Defendant moves to continue trial and all related deadlines, arguing that there is good cause because the first available hearing date in the Court’s reservation system for its motion for summary judgment is April 19, 2024, long after the current June 12, 2023 trial date. The parties have exchanged written discovery and the deposition of Plaintiff was taken on February 2, 2023. There have not been any continuances of the trial date. Further, the interests of justice will be served because the State has a right to file a motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff argues in opposition that the last day to file and serve a motion for summary judgment based on the current trial date, and notice requirements was February 27, 2023, a date that has already passed. Second, defendant's motion should be denied as defendant will not suffer prejudice if the trial date is not continued. Defendant can assert all of the defenses it seeks to assert via summary judgment motion at the trial currently set in this matter. Also, continuing the trial date will not result in a more speedy disposition of this case. Third, defendant presented no facts, competent testimony or evidence in its motion papers demonstrating that it has grounds to bring a summary judgment motion. Rather issues of notice and constructive notice of a defect in public property are generally issues of fact beyond determinations of summary judgment. Finally, if the court grants defendant's motion to continue the trial, defendant should be required immediately serve its summary judgment motion and supporting papers on plaintiff, as a condition of continuance of the trial.

Defendant has presented sufficient facts to show that there is good cause to continue trial. The Court notes that there have been no previous continuances in this matter. Next, in light of the impact and delay the pandemic has caused on the Court’s calendar, Defendant could not reserve a motion for summary judgment before the current trial date, even though it attempted to in October of 2022, well before the current trial date. As such, granting the continuance will allow Defendant’s motion for summary judgment to be heard. Further, Defendant is not required to show it has grounds to bring a motion for summary judgment; it has a statutory right to do so. Moreover, Defendant would be prejudiced if it was required to go to trial when it could potentially save costs and judicial resources by filing a dispositive motion such as a motion for summary judgment. Moreover, Plaintiff has not even argued he would suffer any prejudice by a trial continuance. Lastly, the proposed continuance is not excessive, there are no alternative means to address the problem, and the interests of justice are best served thereby. Thus, Defendant’s motion is granted. Trial is continued to June 3, 2024. Discovery and motion cutoff dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to June 3, 2024. Discovery and motion cutoff dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.