Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 20STCV20734, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV20734, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV20734 Hearing Date: April 18, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Arleen Drew (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Costco Wholesale, “Manager Cesar,” and Does 1 to 50 for general negligence and premises liability in connection with an injury that occurred on June 18, 2018. On July 9, 2020, Costco Wholesale Corporation (erroneously sued as Costco Wholesale) (“Costco”) and “Manager Cesar” filed an answer.

On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Errata to Correct Entity Name,” stating that the correct name of “Manager Cesar” is in fact Cesar Amaral. On September 1, 2022, Cesar Amaral (erroneously sued as Manager Cesar) filed an answer. On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as to Cesar Amaral/Manager Cesar only.

On March 8, 2024, Costco filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion is set for hearing on January 29, 2025. The current trial date is June 24, 2024.

On March 19, 2024, Costco presented an ex parte application to advance the hearing or continue trial. The request to advance the hearing was denied and the request to continue trial was denied without prejudice to seeking the relief through a noticed motion.

On March 21, 2024, Costco filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 5, and Costco filed a reply on April 9.

Legal Standard

Code Civ. Proc. § 128(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.)

Discussion

Costco timely filed its motion for summary judgment on March 8, 2024. (Mantovani Decl., ¶ 5.) Although Plaintiff contends that Costco unreasonably delayed in filing its motion, the motion was filed within the time set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, and under the case law Costco has a right to have its timely filed motion for summary judgment heard before trial.

The Court finds Defendant has established good cause exists for a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Costco’s Motion to Continue Trial.

The Court advances and continues the trial date to approximately mid March 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.