Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV20802, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV20802, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20802 Hearing Date: March 3, 2025 Dept: 29

Lopez v. Medcove Urgent Care
21STCV20802
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On June 3, 2021, Manuel Lopez, as Guardian Ad Litem for both Brianna Sky Lopez and Bella Rose Lopez, both individually and as successors in interest to the Estate of Claudia Lorena Mejia (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Medcove Urgent Care and Jason Torres for professional negligence (wrongful death) arising out of the death of Caludia Lorena Mejia on April 29, 2020.

On August 11, 2023, Jason Torres, N.P. (erroneously sued as Jason Torres) and Medcove Urgent Care, APC (collectively “Defendants”) filed an answer.

On January 13, 2025, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment set to be heard on August 7, 2025.

On February 3, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

Trial is currently set for May 12, 2025.

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).)

“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

Defendants request a trial continuance so that their summary judgment motion may be heard before trial. The summary judgment motion is set to be heard on August 5, 2025.

The Court of Appeal has held that a party has a right to have a timely filed and served summary judgment motion heard before trial. (E.g., Cole, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 88; Sentry Ins. Co., supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 529.)

Here, Defendants have timely filed and served their motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

The Court CONTINUES the trial to a date on or after September 8, 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.