Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV09726, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV09726, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09726 Hearing Date: April 11, 2024 Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On March 21, 2022, Walter E. Jones and Yahne Coleman (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Six Flags Magic Mountain, Inc.; Six Flags Magic Mountain Limited Partnership; and Does 1 through 10. On May 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) against Six Flags Theme Parks Inc.; Six Flags Entertainment Corporation; and Does 1 through 10, asserting causes of action for premises liability; negligence in training, retention, and supervision; and negligent infliction of emotional distress. All of Plaintiffs’ causes of action arise out of an alleged altercation with theme park patrons on June 29, 2021.

On May 27, 2022, Plaintiffs amended the FAC to name Magic Mountain, LLC (“Defendant”) as Doe 1.

On March 27, 2023, Defendant filed its answer to the FAC.

On February 28, 2024, Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment. The motion is set for hearing on October 9, 2024. The trial date is June 11, 2024.

On March 13, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on March 27, and Defendant filed a reply on April 4.

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.)

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.)

“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. … Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. …The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. The filing of the motion shall not extend the time within which a party must otherwise file a responsive pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a).)

Electronic service of a document extends any period of notice by two court days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).)

Discussion

Defendant contends good cause exists to continue trial as it has filed a motion for summary judgment, set to be heard October 9, 2024, after the current trial date of June 11, 2024. (Makorow Decl., ¶ 1.) Defendant states this motion is timely as the motion cut-off date is May 13, 2024, and the motion for summary judgment was served on February 28, 2024. (Mem. at p. 4:14-27.)

Plaintiffs do not contend that the summary judgment motion was not timely filed. Instead, they argue that Defendant should have acted sooner to reserve an earlier hearing date amd that they will be prejudiced by the requested continuance.

As the Court previously noted, however, the law is clear that a party has a right to have a timely filed motion for summary judgment heard before trial. (See 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 for a continuance until after the hearing on Defendant’s summary judgment motion is granted.

Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that if the motion is granted, trial should be continued to mid January 2025 so that they will have adequate time to prepare for trial in the event that the summary judgment motion is denied. That seems appropriate to the Court, and Defendant does not argue otherwise in its reply.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial.

The trial date is advanced and continued to a date in mid January 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.