Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV21181, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV21181, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21181 Hearing Date: August 8, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Fox Investment Company, LLC’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to October 15, 2024.

Background

On June 7, 2021, Plaintiff Goel Talasazan (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Fox Investment Company, LLC, and Does 1 to 20, alleging causes of action for negligence and premises liability, arising out of Plaintiff’s trip and fall over a purportedly faulty mat, resulting in Plaintiff’s injuries.

On May 2, 2022, and June 15, 2022, Plaintiff added AMC Janitorial and Shahzad Enterprises, Inc. dba AMC Janitorial and Maintenance, Inc., as defendants.

On August 10, 2022, Defendant Fox Investment Company, LLC filed a cross-complaint against Shahzad Ent. Inc. and Defendant Shahzad Enterprises, Inc. dba AMC Janitorial and Maintenance, Inc.

On September 8, 2022, Cross-Defendant Shahzad Ent. Inc. filed its cross-complaint against Defendant Fox Investment Company, LLC.

On July 17, 2023, Defendant Fox Investment, LLC (“Fox Investment”), filed this motion to continue trial. No party has filed an opposition.

Trial is currently set for October 6, 2023.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation): (1) unavailability of trial counsel or witnesses due to “death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”; (2) the addition of a new party depriving the new party (or other parties) from conducting discovery and preparing for trial; (3) “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts”; or (4) “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case” preventing it from being ready for trial. (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)

Other relevant considerations may include: “(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.” (Id., Rule 3.1332(d).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings. In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.)

Discussion

This case is currently set for trial on October 6, 2023. Fox Investment filed its motion for summary judgment (MSJ) on June 16, 2023. Fox Investment made a reservation for the MSJ, setting it on the first available date for hearing on a MSJ, which is September 13, 2024. Fox Investment therefore seeks an order continuing the trial date until after the MSJ hearing date.

The Court, in ruling on the motion, is guided by the case of Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court. The Court therein held that a trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c. (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918. 919.) Local rules and practices may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion. (Id.; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529.) “We are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions.” (Id., at p. 530.)

Accordingly, the Court finds there is good cause to continue the current trial date to allow Fox Investment’s motion for summary judgment to be heard. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(d)(10).)

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to October 15, 2024. All deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Final Status Conference is continued to 10/01/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring
Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 10/15/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.