Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV11585, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11585    Hearing Date: May 28, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendants KJR Eastern Enterprises, Inc and Linyan Holdings, LLC.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On April 5, 2022, Albert Yeznaian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against KJR Eastern Enterprises, Inc., Linyan Holdings, LLC, City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence/negligence per se/premises liability, (2) dangerous condition of public property, (3) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and (4) violation of the California Disabled Persons Act arising out of an incident in which the wheelchair bound Plaintiff alleges that je was forced off the sidewalk and hit by a motor vehicle due to the slope of the driveway.

On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint adding Kin Wa Chu as a defendant and a fifth cause of action for motor vehicle negligence.

On February 1, 2023, City of Arcadia filed a cross-complaint against Kin Wa Chiu, KJR Eastern Enterprises, Inc, and Linyan Holdings, LLC for declaratory relief, implied indemnity, and contribution.

On April 5, 2023, County of Los Angeles was dismissed.

On April 5, 2023, Kin Wa Chiu filed a cross-complaint against KJR Eastern Enterprises, Inc, Linyan Holdings, LLC, City of Arcadia, and Couty of Los Angeles for declaratory relief, apportionment, and implied indemnity. On May 25, 2023, Kin Wa Chiu dismissed County of Los Angeles.

On April 25, 2023, KJR Eastern Enterprises, Inc and Linyan Holdings, LLC filed a cross-complaint against City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, and Kin Wa Chiu for (1) declaratory relief, (2) implied indemnity, (3) contribution, and (4) apportionment.

On March 29, 2024, KJR Eastern Enterprises, Inc and Linyan Holdings, Inc. (“Moving Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment.

On April 23, 2024, Moving Defendants filed the motion to continue trial. Defendant City of Arcadia filed a notice of joinder on May 6, 2024. 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).)

“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

Moving Defendants bring this motion to continue trial.  They timely filed a motion for summary judgment on March 29, 2024 that is set to be heard on October 29, 2024. (Antisdale Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3.)

Trial is currently set for August 26, 2024.

The Court finds there is good cause to continue trial.  Moving parties have a right to have their filed motion for summary judgment heard before trial.

The motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS KJR Eastern Enterprises, Inc and Linyan Holdings, Inc’s motion to continue trial.

The date of trial is advanced and continued to mid December 2024.  The Final Status Conference is advanced and continued to ________________, 2024.  All deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.