Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV26068, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV26068 Hearing Date: July 20, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
The motion of Cross-Defendants Traffic Management, Inc. to
continue trial is GRANTED.
Background
On July 14, 2021,
Plaintiff Yesenia Guevara (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants
City of Culver City California (“Culver City”), Bernards Bros Inc. (“BBI”), and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence and
(2) government tort liability. Plaintiff alleges that on August 31, 2020, she
was driving in Culver City, California, when she drove directly into a ditch,
which she believes had been dug by Bernards Bros Inc. for Culver City.
On December 14, 2021,
Culver City and BBI (collectively, “Cross-Complainants”) filed a
Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Traffic Management, Inc. (“TMI”),
Hardy & Harper, Inc., and Moes 1-20, inclusive, asserting causes of action
for (1) total equitable indemnity, (2) express indemnity, (3) implied
indemnity, (4) comparative contribution, (5) breach of written contract, (6)
breach of written contract, (7) declaratory relief (duty to defend), and (8)
declaratory relief. On October 7, 2022, the Cross-Complainants amended the
Cross-Complaint to substitute GGG Demolition, Inc. (“GGG”) for the
cross-defendant sued fictitiously as Moe 1.
On June 21, 2023,
Cross-Defendant TMI filed the instant motion to continue trial.
On July 12, 2023,
Plaintiff filed her opposition to the motion.
On July 13, 2023, TMI filed
its reply.
Trial is scheduled for
November 29, 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
Cross-Defendants Traffic
Management, Inc. (“TMI”) moves to continue trial. The primary basis for the motion is that TMI
recently reserved a date for a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, and
the earliest date available was on September 23, 2024. (Larin Decl., ¶ 16.) Trial is currently scheduled to begin on
November 29, 2023, ten months prior to the hearing date.
A motion for summary judgment
“shall be heard no later than 30 days
before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.”
(Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(3).) “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.)
The Court finds good cause to continue
trial to a date in late November 2024, approximately
60 days after the scheduled hearing on the motion for summary judgment.
The parties jointly ask that the hearing date of TMI’s summary judgment motion be advanced to facilitate a shorter continuance of the trial date. The Court understands the concerns of the parties, but, given the Court’s impacted calendars, the Court does not have the capacity to accommodate the parties’ request.
Conclusion
The motion to
continue trial is GRANTED.
Trial is continued
to a date in late November 2024. The FSC
and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.