Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV31595, Date: 2024-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV31595, Date: 2024-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31595 Hearing Date: January 22, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Continue filed by Defendant American Golf Corporation.

Tentative

The motion is GRANTED.

Background

On August 26, 2021, Plaintiff Terrence Green (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants American Golf Corporation (“Defendant”), County of Los Angeles of Los Angeles, and Does 1 to 100, alleging three causes of action for: (1) Negligence, (2) Premises Liability, and (3) Dangerous Condition of Public Property. The case arises out of a slip and fall incident that allegedly occurred on October 21, 2020.

On December 19, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition on January 11. Defendant filed an untimely reply on January 18.

Legal Standard

Code Civ. Proc. § 128(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.)

Each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits according to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c). The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances 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).)

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 sets forth a list of non-exhaustive factors to be analyzed when determining whether good cause for a trial continuance is present. A court considers factors such as:

“(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).)

Discussion

As a preliminary matter, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the untimely opposition filed by Plaintiff and the untimely reply filed by Defendant.

Defendant contends that good cause for continuance exists as Defendant has timely filed a motion for summary judgment and reserved the first available hearing date, which was February 13, 2025. (Racanelli Decl., ¶ 5.) This is approximately ten months after the current trial date of April 19, 2024. (Id., ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff argues that Defendant could have filed for summary judgment sooner and that there has already been a long delay. (Opposition, 3:15-17.) That may well be true, but a party has a right to have a timely filed motion for summary judgment heard before trial. “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 Defendant has shown good cause for a continuance.

Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Continue is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Motion to Continue is GRANTED.

The Court advances and continues the trial date to mid April 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Final Status Conference is continued to 04/02/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring
Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 04/16/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.