Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV42303, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV42303 Hearing Date: March 20, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Continue filed by Defendant Yard House USA, Inc.
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On November 16, 2021, Fernando Rivera-Rivera (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint against City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, California Department of Transportation, Darden Restaurants, Inc., Yard House, and Does 1 to 50 for Premises Liability and General Negligence causes of action arising from a trip and fall occurring on March 5, 2021.
On August 4 2022, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint naming Yard House USA, Inc. as Doe 1.
On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed First Amended Complaint adding Reginald Stiles as a plaintiff, and bringing the action only against Yard House USA, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 2 to 50.
On December 13, 2023, Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment.
On February 7, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to continue trial. Plaintiff Fernando Rivera-Rivera and Reginald Stiles (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed their opposition on February 26, 2024. Defendant filed its reply on March 1, 2024.
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
Defendant contends that good cause for continuance exists as Defendant has filed for summary judgment, with the hearing date set on the Court’s first available date of February 24, 2025. (Epley Decl., ¶ 3.) Trial date is currently set for May 2, 2024.
Plaintiffs contend Defendant had time to file its motion for summary judgment earlier, and Plaintiffs will be prejudiced by a continuance as Plaintiff Rivera-Rivera is elderly and suffers from several health conditions that affect his ability to testify. (Opposition, 5:6-11.)
Defendant timely filed the motion for summary judgment and is entitled to have the motion 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.)
Accordingly, for good cause shown, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.
Conclusion
The Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.
The trial date is advanced and continued to early April 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.
Final Status Conference is continued to 03/24/2025 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring
Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 04/07/2025 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.