Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV39534, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39534    Hearing Date: October 3, 2024    Dept: 29

Suzor v. Braxton
21STCV39534
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background 

This is a personal injury action arising from an automobile collision that allegedly occurred on or about November 19, 2019.

On October 26, 2021, Plaintiff Patrick Suzor (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ericka Braxton (“Braxton”), Tumbleweed Educational Enterprises Inc., Tumbleweed Transportation, Exsaul Bautista (“Bautista”), Zonia Gladamex (“Gladamex”), Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), and Does 1 through 50, inclusive asserting one cause of action for negligence.

On April 3, 2023, Bautista filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Roes 1 to 50.

On April 17, 2023, Lyft filed an answer.

On April 19, 2023, Tumbleweed Educational Enterprises Inc. dba Tumbleweed Transportation (“Tumbleweed”) and Braxton an answer and a cross-complaint against Bautista and Roes 1 to 20.

On April 21, 2023, Bautista amended his cross-complaint to name Tumbleweed as Roe 1 and Braxton as Roe 2.

Also on April 21, 2023, Tumbleweed and Braxton filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) against Bautista, Gladamex, Lyft, and Roes 1 through 20.

On May 18, 2023, Tumbleweed and Braxton filed an answer to Bautista’s cross-complaint.

On May 22, 2023, Bautista filed an answer to the cross-complaint of Tumbleweed and Braxton.

On May 23, 2023, Lyft filed an answer to the cross-complaint of Tumbleweed and Braxton.

On June 14, 2023, the Court, at the oral request of Plaintiff, dismissed all causes of action in the complaint against Gladamex without prejudice.

On July 17, 2023, the Court granted the motion of Lyft to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims against it.  At last report (on April 18, 2024), the arbitration was still pending.

On March 1, 2024, the Court signed the parties’ join stipulation to continue trial from July 22, 2024, to its current date on December 16, 2024. The Court also continued the Final Status Conference from July 8, 2024, to its current date on December 2, 2024.

On August 28, 2024, Tumbleweed and Braxton filed a motion for summary judgment as to the causes of action asserted against them in Plaintiff’s complaint.  The following day, Tumbleweed and Braxton filed a motion for summary judgment as to the causes of action asserted against them in Bautista’s cross-complaint.  The motions are set for hearing on January 3 and April 25, 2025.

On September 5, 2024, Tumbleweed and Braxton (collectively, “Defendants”) filed this instant motion to continue trial.

No opposition has been filed.

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).)

Discussion

Defendants move for trial continuance from December 16, 2024, to a date at least 30 days after April 25, 2025, to allow the Court to hear their motions for summary judgment.

Defendants’ motions were timely filed and served under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.  A party has a right to have a timely filed summary judgment heard before trial.  (Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529.) 

Good cause has been shown.  The motion is granted.

 Conclusion

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

The trial date is advanced and continued to a date on or after May 27, 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all discovery deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.