Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV09168, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV09168, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09168 Hearing Date: January 24, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Continue filed by Defendants Randolph Schitman and Jacqueline Schitman.

Tentative

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Background

On March 9, 2021, Plaintiff Cindi Witte (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, Randolph Schitman, and Jacqueline Schitman, and Does 1 to 50, alleging three causes of action for: (1) Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Gov. Code section 835 et seq., and (2) Negligence/Premises Liability.

On December 5, 2023, Defendants Randolph and Jacqueline Schitman (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment. They had previously reserved the earliest available date for the hearing on the motion, which was September 20, 2024, six months after the current trial date (March 20, 2024).

On December 12, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to continue trial.

No opposition has been filed.

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

Defendant have timely filed a motion for summary judgment, which is set for hearing on September 20, 2024. That is six months after the date currently set for trial (March 20, 2024.)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have shown good cause for a continuance. Their motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Motion to Continue is GRANTED.

The date of trial is advanced and continued to a date on or after October 20, 2024. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.