Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV29583, Date: 2025-02-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV29583 Hearing Date: February 5, 2025 Dept: 29
Burmayan v. City
of Los Angeles
21STCV29583
Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial
Defendant’s Motion to Extend Deadline to File Motion for Summary Judgment
Tentative
The motions are denied.
Background
On
August 11, 2021, Arman Burmayan, by and through his guardian ad litem Haiganush
Burmayan (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles (“City”),
County of Los Angeles (“County”), State of California (“State”), Burns &
Partners, Inc., Mark Darrell Hollister, and Does 1 through 100, asserting
causes of action for negligence and dangerous condition of public property arising
out of an alleged accident on August 4, 2020.
On
August 18, 2022, County filed an answer. County was dismissed on January 4,
2023.
On
August 19, 2022, State filed an answer. State was dismissed on May 26, 2023.
On
February 8, 2023, City filed an answer, as well as a cross-complaint against Burns
& Partners, Inc, County, Mark Darrell Hollister, State, and Roes 1 through
10.
On
March 10, 2023, Burns & Partners, Inc. and Mark Darrell Hollister
(collectively the “Burns Defendants”) filed an answer to the cross-complaint,
as well as their own cross-complaint against City and Moes 1 through 50.
Also
on March 10, 2023, State filed an answer to City’s cross-complaint.
At
the time of filing, the case was assigned a trial date of February 8,
2023. In January 2023, on the
stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial date to July 7,
2023. In May 2023, on the stipulation of
the parties, the Court continued the trial date to July 26, 2024. In July 2024, on the stipulation of the
parties, the Court continued the trial date to January 24, 2025. In November 2024, on City’s ex parte
application, and over the objection of Plaintiff, the Court continued the trial
to April 28, 2025.
There
are currently two motions before the Court and set for hearing on February 5,
2025.
First,
on December 10, 2024, City filed a motion to extend the deadline to file a
motion for summary judgment. The motion
was initially set for hearing on January 3 and was continued to February 5.
Plaintiff
and the Burns Defendants each filed an opposition on December 19, 2024. After
the hearing was continued, the Burns Defendants filed a second opposition on January
23, 2025.
Second, on January
9, 2025, City filed a motion to continue trial. Plaintiff and the Burns
Defendants each filed an opposition on January 23, and City filed a reply on
January 29.
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.)
A summary judgment motion “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).)
Discussion
City has filed two motions, a motion to
extend the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment, and a motion to
continue the trial. For ease of discussion,
the Court begins with the motion to continue trial.
This case was filed in August 2021. The trial date was set on filing and has been
continued four times – three times by the stipulation of the parties, and the
fourth time by City’s ex parte application (over the objection of
Plaintiff). Trial is currently set for April
28, 2025. Prior to the most recent
continuance, trial was set for January 24, 2025, and the last day to file and
serve a summary judgment motion was on October 10, 2024.
City did not file a motion for summary
judgment on or before October 10, 2024. City
now argues that the good cause to continue the trial is to give it the
opportunity to file a summary judgment motion.
City identifies no other good cause for the requested continuance.
In connection with the motion to continue,
City files no supporting evidence. In
connection with the other motion set for hearing (to extend the deadline), City
offers the declaration of Joshua Quinones, a Deputy City Attorney who states
that the City Attorney’s Office was “unable to dedicate the necessary time and
resources to the defense of this case due to recent budgetary constraints.” (Quinones Decl., ¶ 2.) Mr. Quinones also states that the City Attorney’s
Office prepared a summary judgment but he was out on medical leave from September
2 through September 27, 2024, and was “unable to conduct the review necessary
for the City to file the motion.” (Id.,
¶ 4.)
Good cause to continue the trial again, for a
fifth time, has not been shown. The
Court understands that the City Attorney’s Office (like the law offices of many
other public and private entities) must operate under significant budgetary
constraints, but that is not a sufficient excuse to miss deadlines and it is not
good cause to continue a trial. Indeed,
City appeared in this case in February 2023 and had approximately 20 months –
more than an adequate time – to conduct discovery and prepare any appropriate
dispositive motions prior to the then-applicable October 10, 2024, summary
judgment deadline.
Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is
denied.
Turning to the motion to extend the deadline
to file a summary judgment motion, again City has not shown good cause. Based on the current trial date (April 28,
2025), the last day for a summary judgment motion to be heard under Code of
Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (a)(3), would be on March 28,
2025. The last day to file and serve
such a motion would be 81 days earlier, or January 6, 2025. Good cause has not been shown to set the
hearing less than 30 days before trial, but even if good cause had been shown,
and a hearing were set, for example, seven days before trial – on April 21,
2025 – the last day to file and serve the summary judgment motion would have been
on January 30, 2025. The Court has no
ability to shorten the 81-day notice period.
Accordingly, as a practical matter, the Court has no ability to grant
the relief requested in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of Code
of Civil Procedure section 437c.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES City’s motion to continue
trial.
The Court DENIES City’s motion to extend the
deadline to file a summary judgment motion.