Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV26220, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV26220 Hearing Date: October 2, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendant DoorDash Inc.’s Motion
to Continue Trial is GRANTED.
Background
Plaintiff Dale Stern (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against
Defendants Nathaniel Vaughn (“Vaughn”), Gale Gordon (“Gordon”), and DoorDash,
Inc. (“DoorDash”) (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting the causes of action
for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence. Plaintiff alleges that, on
March 30, 2021, Defendants negligently operated their vehicle and collided into
Plaintiff’s motorcycle at or near the intersection of Pico Boulevard and
Veteran Avenue in Los Angeles, California, causing Plaintiff’s injuries.
On December 14, 2022, based upon the stipulation of the parties, the
Court continued the trial date from January 12, 2023, to December 4, 2023.
On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”), adding additional factual allegations as well as a new theory
of liability based on Business & Professions Code section 7459 to support
his claim of negligence against Defendant DoorDash.
On August 18, 2023, Defendant Doordash filed its motion for
summary judgment. The motion is scheduled to be heard on September 5, 2024.
On September 6, 2023, Defendant Doordash filed the instant motion
to continue trial or to specially set the hearing for its motion for summary
judgment. On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed his opposition papers. On September
25, 2023, Defendant DoorDash filed its reply.
Legal
Standard
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.¿ (California Rules of Court, 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).)¿
Discussion
Defendant DoorDash has timely filed a
motion for summary judgment. Because of the impacted nature of the calendars of
the Personal Injury Hub departments, the motion is
scheduled to be heard on September 5, 2024.
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, subd. (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. Super. Ct. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529; accord Cole v.
Super. Ct. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.) “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.” (Sentry Ins. Co., 207
Cal.App.3d at p. 530.)
Under
these circumstances, DoorDash has shown good cause to continue the trial to a
date in October 2024. Although the Court understands that this will
substantially delay the trial, the Court simply does not have the capacity to
add additional summary judgment hearings to its already packed calendar.
Conclusion
Defendant DoorDash’s Motion to
Continue Trial is GRANTED.
Trial is continued to mid October
2024. The Final Status Conference and all discovery deadlines are reset based
on the new trial date.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice.