Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV01262, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 20STCV01262    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The motion of Defendant Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles to continue the trial is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

Per California Rules of Court (CRC), rule 3.1332, subdivision (c): the court may grant a continuance for “good cause,” which includes: (1) unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) substitution of trial counsel required in the interests of justice; (5) addition of a new party or other parties in regard to a new party’s involvement hasn’t had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; (6) party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which indicates the case is not ready for trial. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)

Other relevant factors to be considered 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” (CRC Rule 3.1332(d).)

“A trial court has great discretion in the disposition of an application for a continuance. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, the court’s determination will not be disturbed.” (Estate of Smith v. Atkinson (1973) 9 Cal.3d 74, 81.) “Such discretion is abused, however, where the lack of a continuance results in the denial of a fair hearing.” (Rankin v. Curtis (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 939, 947.)

Discussion

Here, Defendant Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles (Defendant) moves to continue trial to July 19, 2024, or in the alternative, an order specially setting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment before the trial date. Defendant states that Plaintiff Gladis Canas (Plaintiff) filed an Amendment to the Complaint naming “Mi Nueva Esperanza” as DOE 1 and “Jesus Rojas Mendoza” as DOE 2 but neither defendant has yet appeared in this present action. (Gerson Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Defendant states that after Plaintiff filed proof of service for the newly added defendants, it rescheduled the motion for summary judgment to the earliest available date, which was June 18, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(a)(3) requires a motion for summary judgment be heard no later than 30 days before trial. Defendant states that its motion for summary judgment was timely filed on August 30, 2023 in accordance with the currently set trial date of December 15, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendant also states that the hearing date for the motion for summary judgment is currently scheduled over six months after the current trial date. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Furthermore, Defendant asserts that the parties have stipulated to the relief requested. (Id. at ¶ 9, Exh. A.) Moreover, Defendant contends that (1) the parties are engaged in meaningful settlement discussions; (2) the length of the continuance requested is reasonable; (3) there are no alternative means to address the issue at hand; and (4) the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay and the interests of justice are best served by a continuance. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-14.)

Therefore, the Court finds that good cause for continuance exists in this instant case. Defendant provided sufficient evidence that (1) newly added Defendants Mi Nueva Esperanza and Jesus Rojas Mendoza have not yet appeared in this instant case; (2) Defendant timely filed and served its motion for summary judgment; (3) the parties have stipulated to the continuance; (4) the parties are engaging in discussions regarding settlement; (5) the length of the continuance requested is reasonable because its set a month after the hearing on the motion for summary judgment; (6) the only available alternative means to address the problem giving rise to the motion for a continuance is to advance the motion for summary judgment hearing date; and (7) the first available date to hear the motion for summary judgment is over six months after the current trial date, which constitutes a significant unanticipated change in the status of the case.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion of Defendant Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles to continue the trial is GRANTED.

Trial is continued to a date on or after July 19, 2024. Final Status and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.