Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV28336, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV28336 Hearing Date: October 24, 2023 Dept: 29
Tentative
The motion to
continue trial is GRANTED.
¿
Background¿
¿
¿ On July 30, 2021, Plaintiff
Christopher Dobbert (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants City of
Claremont, City of Pomona, Nuline Technologies, Inc., Golden State Water
Company, Inc., American States Water Company, and Christensen Brothers General
Engineering, Inc. The Complaint alleges
causes of action for dangerous condition of public property and negligence
arising from Plaintiff’s injury at a construction project.
On
August 9, 2023, Defendants American
States Water Company and Golden State Water Company (“Defendants”) filed the
instant motion to advance hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) or to
continue trial. The MSJ is currently
scheduled for November 4, 2024.
No opposition has
been filed by the other parties.
Trial is currently
scheduled for April 9, 2024.
Legal Standard¿
Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of
civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).)¿ Continuances are thus generally disfavored.¿ (See Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (b).)¿ Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to
continue trial dates.¿ (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115
Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.)¿ Each request for continuance must be considered on its
own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c); Hernandez,
supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.)¿¿¿
Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1)
the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness,
or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to
death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of
trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the
substitution of trial counsel 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, subd. (c).)¿¿
The court must also consider such relevant factors as:
(1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous
continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by 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, subd. (d).)¿
¿
Discussion¿
Defendants move to advance hearing on MSJ or to continue
trial.
The Court does not have the capacity to advance the hearing date on
the MSJ, but the Court finds good cause exist to continue trial.
Specifically, Defendants timely filed their MSJ based on the present trial date
of April 9, 2024. (Declaration of David
P. King, ¶
5.) However, the first date
available for a hearing on a motion for summary judgment was November 4, 2024,
which Defendants selected as the hearing for their MSJ. (King Decl., ¶ 6.) It is well established that a court may not
refuse to hear a summary judgment motion that is timely filed.¿ (Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court¿(1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 919.) Further, it does not
appear that other parties would be prejudiced by a trial continuance, and no
opposition has been filed contending otherwise. But Defendants would be
prejudiced if it does not have an opportunity for the MSJ to be heard before
trial because of the Court’s impacted calendar and through no fault of their
own. Therefore, trial is continued.
¿
Conclusion¿
¿ Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
Trial is continued to a date on or after December 4, 2024. Final Status Conference and all deadlines are
reset based on the new trial date.¿
Moving
party to give notice.