Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV20803, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV20803, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)
IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.
ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 21STCV20803 Hearing Date: March 26, 2025 Dept: 29

Lopez v. Medcove Urgent Care
21STCV20803
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, Jason Torres, and Does 1 through 100 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; the motion is set for hearing on August 5, 2025.

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

The motion was set for hearing on March 3, 2025. On March 3, the Court continued the hearing to March 26 and set a schedule for opposition and reply. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 13, and Defendants filed a reply on March 19.

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 motion for summary judgment, set for hearing on August 5, 2025, can be heard before trial. Trial is currently set for May 12, 2025.

A party has a right to have a timely filed motion for summary judgment heard before trial. (Cole, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 88; Sentry Ins. Co., supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 529.) Defendants have filed a timely motion for summary judgment. With trial set for May 12, 2025, the last day for the motion for summary judgment to be heard is April 11, 2025. Counting back 81 days, the last day for a motion for summary judgment to be filed and served was January 20, 2025, and Defendants filed and served their motion on January 13.

Plaintiffs contend that the delay is prejudicial, but the Court notes that no proof of service was submitted until more than two years after the case was filed, and that there have been delays in discovery attributable to Plaintiffs or their counsel. In any event, good cause has been shown.

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or after September 16, 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

The Court directs all counsel and parties to treat the trial date as FIRM. Given the age of the case, the Court will look with disfavor on any further requests to continue trial.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.