Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 19STCV29934, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV29934 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Continue
Trial filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.
Tentative
The motion is granted in part.
The trial date is continued, and the hearing
date on the summary judgment motion is advanced.
Background
On August 23,
2019, Vadim Albukh (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles
(“City”), Gertrude Ring, and Does 1 to 25 for motor vehicle negligence and
general negligence. On November 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended
Complaint against the same defendants for motor vehicle negligence, general
negligence, and premises liability arising out of an automobile accident
occurring on January 11, 2019.
On May 13, 2021,
City filed an answer.
On June 7, 2024,
City filed a motion for summary judgment.
The hearing date is set for May 15, 2025.
On July 3, 2024, City filed this motion to
continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 17; City filed a reply on
July 24.
Trial is
currently scheduled for September 23, 2024.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 128,
subdivision (a)(8), provides that the court has the power to amend and control
its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. “The
power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the
discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44
Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) “A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of
calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances.” (Park
Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.)
“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil
cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm.
All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as
certain.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(a).)
“Although continuances of trials are
disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own
merits.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a
continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the
continuance.” (Ibid.) Circumstances that may support a finding of
good cause include:
“(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.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)
“In ruling on a motion or application for
continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are
relevant to the determination.” (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) California
Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that
the court may consider:
“(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, rule 3.1332(d).)
“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment
motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529; accord Cole v. Superior
Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.)
Discussion
City requests a
trial continuance to accommodate its motion for summary judgment, set to be
heard on May 15, 2025. In the alternative, City requests that the Court specially
set the hearing on its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes the
motion, however, arguing that if the trial is scheduled for after the hearing
date on City’s motion for summary judgment, the trial date would be after the five-year
period (even as extended) set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310.
City’s motion for
summary judgment was timely filed, and thus, City has the right for the motion
to be heard. With consideration of the five-year rule, the Court finds there is
good cause to advance the hearing on City’s motion for summary judgment, and to
set the date of trial approximately 30 days after the hearing.
City’s motion is
granted in part for good cause shown
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS IN PART City’s motion.
The hearing on City’s motion for summary
judgment is advanced to November __, 2024, at 1:30 pm.
The trial date is continued to December __,
2024, at 8:30 am.
The Final Status Conference and all deadlines
are reset based on the new trial date.
Moving party to give notice.