Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV23604, Date: 2024-08-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV23604 Hearing Date: August 30, 2024 Dept: 29
Alvarez v. M+D Properties
22STCV23604
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On July 21, 2022, Martha Gisela
Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against M+D Properties (“M+D”), Plaza
Mexico Foundation, Centro Jalisco, and Does 1 through 50 for premises liability
and negligence arising from a fall on a stairway on July 19, 2021.
On August 2, 2022, a notice of stay
for bankruptcy was filed by Plamex Investment, LLC (“Plamex”).
On October 11, 2022, M+D filed an
answer.
On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed
a notice that the Bankruptcy Court granted a motion for relief from stay that
permitted Plaintiff to proceed with litigation as against any available
insurance, including but not limited to certain identified Travelers Insurance
policies.
On January 5 and 16, 2024, Plaintiff amended the
complaint to name Greenland Property Management, LLC (“Greenland”) as Doe 1 and
Plamex as Doe 2.
On May 16, 2024, Plamex filed an answer and
cross-complaint. On July 23, 2024, Greenland filed an answer and
cross-complaint.
On August 9, 2024, Defendants Plamex and Greenland
(collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion to continue trial. On August 13,
2024, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte to advance the hearing date
to August 30.
No opposition to the motion has been filed.
Trial is currently set for October 14, 2024.
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).)
Discussion
Defendants request a trial continuance as they were both appeared
only recently: Plamex filed an answer on May 16, 2024 and Greenland filed an
answer on July 23, 2024. (Ortega-Carrillo Decl., ¶¶ 10, 12.) Trial is in
approximately six weeks, on October 14, 2024.
Defendants request a continuance to July 2025 to allow
Defendants to conduct discovery, including Plaintiff’s deposition and medical
examination, and so that they may evaluate a potential motion for summary
judgment.
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion.
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(5) provides for
a continuance when a new party is added to a matter with insufficient time to
prepare for trial. The Court finds Defendants have established good cause for a
continuance based on their recent addition to this matter.
The motion is granted.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue
trial.
The Court CONTINUES the trial date to a date
on or after July 7, 2025. The Final Status Conference and all discovery
deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.
Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.