Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV16335, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV16335 Hearing Date: June 21, 2024 Dept: 29
Defendants’ Motion for Special Setting of Hearing on
Motion for Summary Judgment or to Continue Trial
Tentative
The request for special setting of the
hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.
The request, in the alternative, to continue
trial is granted.
Background
On April 29, 2020, Solomon Barnes (“Plaintiff”) filed a
complaint against Los Angeles Unified School District, Foshay Learning Center
and Javier Bran for (1) negligence, (2) negligent supervision, (3) violation of
civil rights, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (5)
negligent infliction of emotional distress, all arising out of an incident on June
5, 2019.
On May 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed the first amended
complaint against Los Angeles Unified School District and Javier Bran
(collectively “Defendants”) for negligence and negligent supervision.
Defendants filed their answer on June 25, 2021.
The current trial date of September 30, 2024, was set by
Court order entered on the stipulation of the parties in December 2023.
On April 23, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. It appears that the Defendants
reserved a hearing date with the Court of September 23, 2024. On the summary judgment papers, however,
Defendants listed a July 8 hearing date.
On May 20, 2024, the Court denied Defendants’
ex parte application, without prejudice in part. More specifically, the Court denied
Defendants’ request to advance the hearing date on the summary judgment motion
and denied without prejudice Defendants’ request to continue trial.
Later on May 20, Defendants filed this
motion. Defendants ask for a special
setting of the hearing on their summary judgment motion or, in the alternative,
to continue the trial date.
On June 10, Plaintiff filed a partial
opposition to the motion. Plaintiff
opposes the request for a special setting of the hearing on the summary
judgment motion but joins in the request to continue trial.
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).)
Discussion
Defendants’ request for a special setting of the hearing on their summary
judgment motion is denied. The Court
does not have hearing dates available within the time period requested.
Defendants’
alternative request to continue trial is granted. Defendants have a right to have their timely
filed motion for summary judgment heard before trial. (Cole v. Super. Ct. (2022)
87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1989) 207
Cal.App.3d 526, 529.) The general rule is that
summary judgment motions must be heard at least 30 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(3).)
Conclusion
The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for a
special setting of the hearing on their motion for summary judgment.
The Court GRANTS Defendants’
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.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.