Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV09735, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV09735, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09735 Hearing Date: August 9, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The motion of Defendants Wellsville Properties LLC, Michael Bruce and NPS Management to continue trial and related dates is GRANTED.

Background

This matter arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on April 8, 2020. Plaintiff Kenny Dorsey (“Plaintiff’) filed the Complaint in this action on March 21, 2022, and the first amended complaint (“FAC”) on August 22, 2022. In the FAC, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants Angelique Evans, Yvonne Arambula, Wellsville Properties, LLC, Michael Bruce, NPS Management, and Does 1 through 30. The FAC alleges that Defendant Angelique Evans lost control of her vehicle and collided into the building and apartment that Plaintiff resided in.

Defendant NPS Management filed its answer and a cross-complaint against Defendants Evans, Arambula, and Roes 1 through 10 on November 4 and 7, 2022.

Wellsville Properties and Michael Bruce (represented by the same counsel as NPS) filed their answer and a cross-complaint against Defendants Evans, Arambula, and Roes 1 through 10 on December 2 and 13, 2022.

Angelique Evans and Yvonne Arambula filed their answer and their cross-complaint against Defendants Wellsville Properties, Michael Bruce, NPS Management, and Roes 1 through 10 on July 31 and August 3, 2023.

Trial is currently set for September 18, 2023.

On July 13, 2023, Defendants Wellsville Properties LLC, Michael Bruce and NPS Management (collectively “Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to continue the trial date to June 28, 2024, or a date thereafter convenient with the Court and all related dates pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1005 and 128, and California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1300, et se. and 3.1322, on the grounds that good cause exist.

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

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.¿ (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c).)¿¿¿

Other relevant considerations¿may¿include: “(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.”¿ (Id., Rule 3.1332(d).)¿

Discussion

Moving Defendants request an order continuing the Trial date from September 18, 2023 to June 28, 2024, or a date thereafter convenient with the Court and all related dates, arguing good causes exists. Moving Defendants have reserved a date for the hearing on a motion for summary judgement for May 15, 2024, which was the first hearing date available. (Declaration of Liebhaber, ¶¶ 1-3.) Defendants have checked the Court Reservation System for an earlier date but no earlier dates have opened up, and there have been no previous trial continuances in this matter. (Declaration of Aivadjian, ¶¶ 2-3.)

It is well established that a court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion that is timely filed.¿ (Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court¿(1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 919¿[“We are asked to determine whether the trial court may refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.¿We determine it may not”]; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 530¿[“We are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions.”].)¿¿¿¿¿

The Court finds there is good cause to continue trial as the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgement is set after the current trial date due to the Court’s congested calendar. Further, it does not appear that Plaintiff or the other defendants (two of whom have just appeared within the past two weeks) would be prejudiced by a trial continuance, and no opposition has been filed. Thus, the motion is granted.

Conclusion

Moving Defendants’ motion to continue trial and related dates is GRANTED.

The September 18, 2023 trial date is advanced and continued to June 28, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference and all discovery deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling and to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.