Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV13539, Date: 2025-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13539    Hearing Date: February 28, 2025    Dept: 29

County of Los Angeles v. City Terrace Service, Inc.
22STCV13539
Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Penske Truck Leasing Co.

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

This matter involves two consolidated cases arising out of an accident that occurred on June 25, 2020, in which it is alleged that a motorcycle on a tow truck came loose and injured Sheriff’s Deputy Joel Cohen.

In the first-filed case (Case No. 22STCV13539), Deputy Cohen’s employer, the County of Los Angeles (“County”) filed a complaint on April 22, 2022, for subrogation Defendants City Terrace Service, Inc., Mohammad Amine Rahmani (collectively, the “City Terrace Defendants”), and Does 1 through 10. The City Terrace Defendants answered on June 30, 2022. On October 14, 2022, County amended the complaint to correct the identification of Defendant Rahmani.

In the second-filed case (Case No. 22STCV18608), Plaintiffs Joel S. and Teresa A. Cohen (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint on June 7, 2022, against the City Terrace Defendants and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On November 2, 2022, the two cases were related. On December 5, 2022, the cases were consolidated.

On November 15, 2022, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to name Penske Truck Leasing Co. (“Penske”) as Doe 1.

Penske filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on February 15, 2023.

On May 9, 2024, the Court granted the unopposed motion of the City Terrace Defendants for a determination that their settlement with County and Plaintiffs was in good faith under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

On June 17, 2024, the Court, at the request of County, dismissed the complaint filed by County with prejudice.

On June 25, 2024, the Court, at the request of Plaintiffs, dismissed the causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs against the City Terrace Defendants with prejudice.

On August 26, 2024, the Court denied Penske’s first motion for summary judgment after sustaining Plaintiffs’ objection to certain evidence offered by Penske.

On November 14, 2024, Penske filed a new motion for summary judgment.  That motion is set for hearing on May 27, 2025.

Trial is scheduled for March 3, 2025.

On February 4, 2025, Penske filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiffs filed an untimely opposition on February 18.

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

As a preliminary matter, the Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiffs’ untimely opposition.

Penske request a trial continuance so that its motion for summary judgment may be heard before trial.

A party has a right to have its timely filed summary judgment heard before trial.  (Cole, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 88; Sentry Ins. Co., supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 529.)  Penske’s motion, filed on November 14, 2024, is timely; it is set for hearing after the trial date only because of the Court’s impacted schedule.

Plaintiffs argue that this is Penske has already had a hearing on a summary judgment motion.  That is true, but there is no prohibition on filing two summary judgment motions (or, at least, there was no such prohibition prior to statutory amendments effective on January 1, 2025) – and that’s particularly notable here, where the first motion was denied based on an ruling on objections to Penske’s motion.

Penske has a right to have its motion for summary judgment motion heard before trial.  The motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial.

The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or after June 30, 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.