Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV12180, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV12180, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12180 Hearing Date: August 7, 2024 Dept: 29

Simonian v. Vartanian
Case No. 22STCV12180

Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On April 11, 2022, Lousi Simonian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Rostam Vartanian, Mesrop Keshishyan, Keshishyan Family Trust, and Does 1 through 50, for negligence, strict liability, and negligence per se arising out of a dog bite incident occurring on August 22, 2021.

On August 22, 2023, Mesrop Keshishyan and Keshishyan Family Trust (collectively the “Keshishyan Defendants”) filed an answer. On January 31, 2024, the Keshishyan Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Rostam Vartanian.

On May 7, 2024, the Keshishyan Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion is set to be heard on December 30, 2024. Trial is currently set for August 21, 2024.

On June 3, 2024, Keshishyan Defendants filed this motion to continue trial, or in the alternative, specially set the hearing for the motion for summary judgment. 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

The Keshishyan Defendants request a trial continuance so that their motion for summary judgment, with a hearing scheduled for December 30, 2024, is heard before trial. Trial is currently set for August 21, 2024. In the alternative, the Keshishyan Defendants request the Court to specially set the motion for summary judgment.

The request for a special setting is denied. The Court does not have dates available for a special setting of the motion.

The request to continue trial is granted. Good cause has been shown.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS and CONTINUES the trial to a date in late February 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.