Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV17128, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV17128, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17128 Hearing Date: March 26, 2024 Dept: 29

Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

This matter arises out of an alleged vehicle accident on June 18, 2019. On May 6, 2021, Plaintiff Mohammad Kamal (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint asserting one cause of action for negligence against Defendants Alan Galicia Cordero, Donlen Mobility LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 50. On September 22, 2022, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.

On December 11, 2023, Defendant Donlen Trust (erroneously sued as Donlen Mobility LLC) filed its motion for summary judgment. The hearing is scheduled for February 10, 2025.

On February 23, 2024, 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).)

Discussion

Defendant contends that good cause exists to continue trial as Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment, set to be heard February 10 2025 after the current trial date. (Motion, 4:254-26.)

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was filed on December 11, 2023. Trial is currently set for July 29, 2024.

“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.)

Here, Defendant timely filed its motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

The trial date is advanced and continued to late March 2025. Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Final Status Conference is continued to 03/11/2025 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring
Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 03/25/2025 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.