Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV37565, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37565    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Vacate and Reset, or Continue Trial filed by Defendant Tesla, Inc.

Tentative

The motion to continue trial is granted.

Background

On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff Hae Young Suh filed her complaint Gianni Antonio Garafano Williams, Tesla, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1 through 20, for (1) General Negligence, (2) Motor Vehicle Negligence, and (3) Negligence Per Se.

On April 12, 2022, in case number 22STCV12283 (subsequently related to and consolidated with this action), Plaintiff Jung Ok Shin filed a complaint against Defendants Gianni Garafano Williams and Tesla Service Buena Park alleging the same causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence, stemming from the same accident that occurred on September 7, 2021.

On September 19, 2022, in case number 22STCV30506 (subsequently related to and consolidated with this action), Plaintiff Choon Kang filed a complaint against Defendants Gianni Antonio Garafano Williams and Tesla Inc. alleging the same causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence, stemming from the same accident that occurred on September 7, 2021.

The three cases were consolidated on September 8, 2023.

On December 4, 2023, Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed its motion for summary judgment.  The hearing on the motion is scheduled for February 20, 2025.

On January 12, 2024, Defendant filed its motion to vacate and reset, or continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

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).)

“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

Defendant contends that there is good cause for a continuance of trial as Defendant has filed a timely motion for summary judgment, and the hearing is set for February 20, 2025. (Crowell Decl., ¶ 8.) Trial date is currently set for March 14, 2024. (Id., ¶ 9.)

No opposition has been filed.

The Court finds Defendant has shown good cause for a continuance.  Defendant has a right to have its timely filed motion for summary judgment heard before trial. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Continue is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Motion to Continue is GRANTED.

The date of trial is advanced and continued to early April 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.