Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV13539, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV13539, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13539 Hearing Date: February 16, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial Date, filed by Defendant Penske Truck Leasing Co.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

This matter involves two consolidated cases, County of Los Angeles v. City Terrace Service, Inc., et al. (Case No. 22STCV13539) and Cohen, et al. v. City Terrace Service, Inc., et al. (Case No. 22STCV18608). Trial is currently scheduled for April 29, 2024.

Defendant Penske Truck Leasing Co. (“Penske”) filed a motion for summary judgment on January 12, 2024. The motion was initially noticed for hearing on July 17, 2024, but the Court’s records indicate that the motion is currently on calendar for May 3, 2024.

On January 19, 2024, Penske filed this motion to continue trial to a date approximately 90 days after the summary judgment hearing. Plaintiffs Joel S. Cohen and Teresa A. Cohen (“Plaintiffs”) filed their opposition on February 2, 2024, opposing the requested relief; in the alternative, Plaintiffs state that any continuance should be limited to approximately 45 days after the summary judgment hearing date.

Legal Standard

Code Civ. Proc. § 128(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.)

Discussion

Penske contends that there is good cause for a continuance of trial as it timely filed a motion for summary judgment, with the hearing date initially set for July 17, 2024. (Harwell Decl., ¶ 2.)

Although Plaintiffs oppose the requested relief, it is certainly the case that Penske has a right to have its timely filed motion for summary judgment heard before trial. Accordingly, Penske has shown good cause for some continuance of the trial date.

On these facts, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial date to mid June 2024, approximately 45 days after the current hearing date on Penske’s motion for summary judgment.

Conclusion

The Motion to Continue is GRANTED.

The trial date is advanced and continued to approximately June 18, 2024. Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.