Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV37250, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37250    Hearing Date: October 26, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The Motion to Continue Trial filed by the City of Los Angeles is GRANTED.

Background

This case stems from an incident in which Alfred Hutchings, an employee with Innovative Terminal Services, was operating a forklift at a worksite where the street allegedly consisted of rough, uneven pavement with multiple potholes. (First Amended Complaint, “FAC”, ¶ 14.) On February 10, 2021, Alfred Hutchings was operating a forklift when one of the tires became stuck in a pothole and caused a crash injuring Alfred Hutchings.

Alfred Hutchings and his wife Jennifer (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their initial Complaint on October 8, 2021. The FAC followed on December 21, 2021. The instant Motion, filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”), is a Motion to Continue Trial (“Motions”). The Motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that 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.¿ (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)¿¿¿

The court may also consider the following factors: “(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 3.1332(d).)¿¿ ¿

Analysis

Defendant’s primary argument is that a continuance of trial is necessary so that its summary judgement motion may be heard prior to trial. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on August 25, 2023, and reserved the earliest available hearing date for the motion, which was September 16, 2024, well after the current trial date of December 12, 2023. The Motion for Summary Judgment was filed within the timing parameters of Code of Civil Procedure section 437(c), and Defendant has a right to have a timely filed motion for summary judgment be heard prior to trial. (CCP § 437c. Also see First State Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4^th 324, 333.) Therefore, in light of the Court’s calendar, the proximity of the current trial date, the possible prejudice that Defendant may suffer, and the fact that the instant Motion is unopposed, the Court will grant the instant Motion.  

Conclusion

The Motion to Continue Trial filed by the City of Los Angeles is GRANTED.

Trial is continued to late October 2024. Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.