Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV24156, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV24156 Hearing Date: March 14, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Specially Set Motion for Summary Judgment Date
or Alternatively to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Walmart, Inc.
Tentative
The Court will hear from counsel.
Background
On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff Raul Hernandez (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against Walmart, Inc. (“Defendant”), Be Kim, and Does 1 through
20, asserting causes of action for general negligence and premises liability
arising out of an alleged trip and fall incident on October 25, 2020, at a location
on Walnut Grove Avenue in Rosemead.
On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to
name Mary Ramirez as Doe 1. On September 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request for
dismissal, without prejudice, of Defendants Be Kim and Mary Ramirez.
On September 19, 2022, Defendant filed its answer to the
complaint.
On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name
The Coca-Cola Company as Doe 11. On August
8, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to correct the name of The Coca-Cola
Company to Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling, L.L.C. (“Reyes”). Reyes filed its answer to the complaint on
August 21, 2023.
On February 2, 2024, Defendant filed its motion for
summary judgment. The motion is set for
hearing on April 16, 2025. The current
trial date is June 3, 2024, more than ten months before the summary judgment
hearing date.
On February 13, 2024, Defendant filed an ex parte
application for a special setting of the hearing on the summary judgment motion
or, in the alternative, for a continuance of the trial. On February 14, the Court heard the ex parte
application and set the matter for hearing on March 14, 2024.
Plaintiff filed a notice of “Contingent Non-Opposition”
to Defendant’s request on March 1. Defendant
filed a reply on March 6.
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.)
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).)
Discussion
Defendant timely filed a motion for summary judgment on February 2,
2024, with the hearing set for April 16, 2025.
That is ten months after the current trial date of June 3, 2024. Defendant has a right to have its timely
filed 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.) Defendant asks
the Court for a special setting of its motion and/or for a continuance of the
trial date.
Plaintiff proposes a hearing date of May 16, 2024 (which was available
as of the date of filing of the non-opposition) and a brief continuance of the
trial date to June 17, 2024. Defendant
asserts that there may be a conflict with that trial date and asks that trial
be continued to August 2024.
(Defendant also asks in its reply, for the first time, that the Court
order the parties to participate in a Mandatory Settlement Conference. That may well be a good idea, and perhaps all
parties will agree, but the Court will not consider or grant relief requested
for the first time in a reply brief.)
The Court will hear from counsel.
Conclusion
The Court will
hear from counsel.