Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV37122, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37122    Hearing Date: November 14, 2024    Dept: 29

Guevara v. Douglas Emmett, Inc.
21STCV37122
Defendants’ Motion to Advance Hearing Date or Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion to continue trial is granted.

Background

On October 7, 2021, Maria Del Carman Guevara (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Douglas Emmett, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for premises liability and general negligence arising out of an incident on October 11, 2019, in which Plaintiff alleges that she walked “near or around” a “full height wall of clear transparent glass” installed in an office building in Century City. 

On filing, the case was assigned a trial date of April 6, 2023.

On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting the same causes of action against the same defendants.

At the Final Status Conference on March 23, 2023, the Court vacated the trial date and set a Trial Setting Conference for October 9, 2023.

On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Dougles Emmett 1997, LLC as Doe 1 and Douglas Emmett Management, LLC as Does 1 and 2.

On May 26, 2023, Dougles Emmett 1997, LLC and Douglas Emmett Management, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) filed their answer to the FAC.

On May 30, 2023, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed all causes of action against Douglas Emmett, Inc.

On October 9, 2023, the Court set trial for January 23, 2025.

On October 1, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.  The hearing is set for June 12, 2025.

On October 7, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to advance the hearing date for the motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 22.

The hearing on this motion was initially set for November 4 and was continued, on the Court’s own motion, to November 14.

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.)

Discussion

Defendants first request that the hearing on their motion for summary judgment be advanced so it can be heard before the January 23, 2025 trial date.  That request is denied.  The Court does not have any summary judgment hearing dates available within the time frame requested.

In the alternative, Defendants request a trial continuance so that their summary judgment motion may be heard before trial.  Parties have a right to have their timely filed summary judgment motions heard before trial.  (Cole, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 88; Sentry Ins. Co., supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 529.)  Accordingly, the alternative request to continue the trial date is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

The Court ORDERS that the trial is CONTINUED to a date in mid July 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.