Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 21STCV37111, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 19 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
If you desire to submit on a tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 19 before 08:00 a.m. on the day of the motion hearing. The e-mail address for submitting is SMCDept19@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name and number, and that you submit. For example, "Smith v. Jones BC551124, submit". The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.
PLEASE NOTE, The above e-mail address is only to inform the Court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries or correspondence will not receive a response.
Case Number: 21STCV37111 Hearing Date: March 23, 2023 Dept: 19
After consideration of the briefing filed, Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions, LLC’s Motion to Continue Trial, or in the alternative, to Specially Set Hearing of Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions, LLC’s Motion to Specially Set Hearing of Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court advances the Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment, scheduled for September 14, 2023, to July 11, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 19 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
The Court DENIES Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions, LLC’s Motion to Continue Trial.
Counsel for Defendant Numero Uno Acquisitions, LLC to give notice.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an employment dispute action. Plaintiff Mabel Aguilar (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendants Numero Uno Acquisitions, LLC (“Numero Uno”), Buy-Low Market, Inc., and P.V. Mart, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following causes of action:
1. Discrimination in Violation of Gov’t Code §§12940 Et Seq.;
2. Retaliation in Violation of Gov’t Code §§12940 Et Seq.;
3. Failure to Prevent Discrimination And Retaliation in Violation Of Gov’t Code §12940(K);
4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation Of Gov’t Code §§12940 Et Seq.;
5. Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation Of Gov’t Code §§12940 Et Seq.;
6. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and
7. For Declaratory Judgment.
On February 6, 2023, Defendant Numero Uno filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial, or in the alternative, to Specially Set Hearing of Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”).
GROUNDS FOR MOTIOM
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, Defendant Numero Uno moves for an order continuing the trial date to on or after October 16, 2023 or, in the alternative, specially setting a hearing on its motion for summary judgment so that the motion for summary judgment may be heard no later than thirty (30) days before the August 15, 2023 trial date.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standards
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a) provides that “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” (Cal. R. Ct., 3.1332(a).)
Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations.” (Cal. R. Ct., 3.1332(b).) “The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” (Id.)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) provides that “[a]lthough 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.”¿ (Cal. R. Ct., 3.1332(c).)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) sets forth the following circumstances that may indicate good cause:
(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable 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 if:
(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or
(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;
(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.
(Id.)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) provides that “[i]n ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination” which may include the following:
(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. R. Ct., 3.1332(d).)
B. Discussion
Here, Defendant Numero Uno on the grounds that, following Plaintiff’s deposition on October 27, 2022, Defendant Numero Uno wishes to file a motion for summary judgment, but the first available hearing date was for September 14, 2023. (Motion, pp. 1-4.)
Plaintiff does not oppose specially setting the hearing date for a motion for summary judgment, but opposes the motion to continue trial on the grounds that a continuance would needlessly prolong the matter and prejudice Plaintiff. (Opposition, pp. 2-3.)
The Court does not find that Defendant Numero Uno makes an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance. Defendant Numero Uno contends that Plaintiff’s deposition is what indicated to Defendant Numero Uno that a motion for summary judgment was appropriate. (See Motion at p. 1.) However, according to Defendant Numero Uno, Plaintiff’s deposition was taken on October 26, 2022, (id.), but Defendant Numero Uno did not file the instant Motion until February 6, 2023. Thus, Defendant Numero Uno did not make the motion to continue trial as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332. The Court does not find that Defendant Numero Uno sets forth any showing to conclude that there has been an “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts” or “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial” requiring a continuance. (Cal. R. Ct., 3.1332(c)(6)-(7).) Trial was scheduled in the matter on March 17, 2022. (See March 17, 2022 Minute Order, p. 2.) The Court does not find Defendant Numero Uno has made a sufficient showing that any of the circumstances set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivisions (c) and (d) exists so as to require a continuance.
Thus, Defendant Numero Uno’s motion for a trial continuance is DENIED.
However, the Court GRANTS Defendant Numero Uno’s request to advance the hearing date for the reserved Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment so that Defendant Numero Uno’s motion for summary judgment may be timely heard before the scheduled August 15, 2023 trial date.