Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV11846, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV11846, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11846 Hearing Date: March 24, 2025 Dept: 29

Navarro v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
22STCV11846
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On April 7, 2022, Elva Lopez Navarro, Jose Lopez, Lidia Angelica Lopez and Elvia Lopez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Delta Airlines, Inc., LAX World Airport, and Does 1 through 50 for negligence – wrongful death cause of action arising out of the death of Ricardo Lopez Rangel in a boarding accident on July 13, 2021.

On July 13, 2022, Delta Air Lines, Inc. filed an answer.

On April 4, 2023, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to name ERMC Aviation, LLC as Doe 1 and ABM Aviation, Inc. as Doe 2.

On May 17, 2023, ABM Aviation, Inc. filed an answer.

On May 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action for negligence – wrongful death and survivors action; violation of Government Code sections 835 and 815.2; and negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training.

On July 18, 2023, ERMC Aviation, LLC filed an answer to the FAC.

On July 27, 2023, ABM Aviation, Inc. and Delta Air Lines, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) filed answers to the FAC.

On June 6, 2024, ERMC Aviation, LLC filed a motion for summary judgment, with the hearing set for April 14, 2025.

On February 10, 2025, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, with the hearing set for August 20, 2025.

On February 25, 2025, Defendants filed this motion to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

Trial is currently set for June 5, 2025.

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

Defendants request a trial continuance to accommodate the motion for summary judgment to be heard on August 20, 2025. (Sands Decl., ¶ 3.)

A party has a right to have a timely motion for 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.)

Here, Defendants have timely filed a motion for summary set to be heard on August 20, 2025, more than two months after the trial date.

Good cause has been shown. The motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or after October 20, 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.