Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV15518, Date: 2023-07-21 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: 20STCV15518    Hearing Date: April 19, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial

Defendant’s Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted as True the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission

Tentative

The motion to continue trial is granted in part and denied in part.

The motion for an order deeming Requests for Admission admitted as true is denied.

Background

This action arises from an automobile accident that occurred on April 25, 2018, involving Plaintiff Brad Bello (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Francisco Jose Maisch (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on April 23, 2020, against Defendant and Does 1 through 30, asserting one cause of action for motor vehicle negligence.  Defendant filed his answer on November 19, 2021.

On April 28, 2023, the Court granted the motion of Plaintiff’s counsel to be relieved.  Since that time, Plaintiff has been representing himself.

Two motions are currently before the Court and set for hearing on April 19.

First, Defendant filed a motion to continue trial on March 18, 2024.  No opposition has been received.

Second, Defendant filed a motion for an order deeming admitted as true the matters specified in Requests for Admission (RFAs).

As to that motion, on May 12, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with RFAs (Set One).  (Mittskus Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.)  Plaintiff was served by mail.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff did not respond.  (Id., ¶¶ 6, 10.)

On February 22, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for a deemed admitted order.  Plaintiff was served by mail.  No timely opposition has been filed.  The matter was initially set for hearing on April 9.  At the hearing, Plaintiff appeared, as did Defendant’s counsel.  After hearing from both sides, the Court continued the hearing to April 19. 

On April 17, Plaintiff filed a copy of his responses to the RFAs.  It is unclear whether the responses were served on Defendant’s counsel (no proof of service is attached).

Legal Standard

Motion to Continue Trial

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.) 

Each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits according to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c). The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances 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).) 

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 sets forth a list of non-exhaustive factors to be analyzed when determining whether good cause for a trial continuance is present. A court considers factors such as: 

“(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.)

Motion for Order Deeming RFAs Admitted

A party must respond to requests for admission within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an order that … the truth of [the] matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for such a motion, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2033.280; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The court “shall” make the order that the truth of the matters specified in the request be deemed admitted unless the court “finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-780.)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion [to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission].”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Discussion

Motion to Continue

The trial date in this matter is June 5, 2024.

Defendant has motions to compel (filed on April 3) scheduled for hearing on May 28, the week before trial.  Defendant also has reserved a hearing date of December 3, 2024, for a motion for summary judgment, but Defendant has not filed the motion yet.

No other grounds for the motion are identified in the moving papers.

The motion to continue the trial date is granted in part. 

The Court finds good cause for a brief continuance of the trial date so that the discovery motions may be heard and, if the motion granted, so that the discovery responses may be provided.  A continuance of 30 days should be more than adequate to address that issue.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a) [setting cutoff for discovery motions to be heard 15 days before trial.].)

The Court does not find good cause at this time for a continuance of the trial date based on Defendant’s reservation of a hearing date for a summary judgment motion.  Reserving a hearing date for a motion is not the equivalent of filing a motion.  It is not uncommon for a party to reserve a hearing date but then not file the motion.

A party has a right to have a timely filed more for summary judgment heard before trial.  (Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529.)  Here, however, Defendant has not filed any such motion.

Motion for Order Deeming RFAs Admitted

Defendant served Plaintiff with RFAs (Set One) on May 12, 2023.  (Mittskus Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.)  Prior to the filing of the motion, Plaintiff had not responded.  (Id., ¶¶ 6, 10.)

Plaintiff did file with the Court responses to the RFAs on April 17, 2024. 

These responses are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.  Accordingly, the motion for a deemed-admitted order is denied.

Defendant does not request sanctions.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial.

The trial date is continued for approximately 30 days.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for an order deeming admitted as true the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set One).

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.