Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV25443, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25443    Hearing Date: January 7, 2025    Dept: 29

Wiley v. The Kroger Co.
22STCV25443
Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background 

On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff Benjamin Lee Wiley filed a complaint against The Kroger Co., Ralphs, and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for premises liability and negligence arising out of an alleged slip and fall on August 8, 2020, at a Ralphs Grocery Store on Sepulveda Boulevard in Torrance.

On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint correcting the location of the store to an address on Carson Street in Torrance.

On May 16, 2023, Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs (erroneously sued as Ralphs) (“Defendant”) filed an answer to the amended complaint.

On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss The Kroger Co.

On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name American Guard Services, Inc. as Doe 1.

On June 26, 2024, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against American Guard Services, Inc. and Roes 1 through 30.

On October 7, 2024, Defendant amended the cross-complaint to name Allied Universal Security as Roe 1.

On October 9, 2024, Defendant filed a request to dismiss American Guard Services, Inc. from the cross-complaint.

On November 27, 2024, Universal Protection Service, LP dba Allied Universal Security Services (erroneously sued as Allied Universal Security) (“Universal”) filed an answer to the cross-complaint.  On the same day, Universal filed a cross-complaint against Defendant and Moes 1 through 50.

On January 2, 2025, Defendant filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

As it relates to the matter set for hearing on January 7, 2025, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial on December 5, 2024.

No opposition has been filed.

Trial is currently set for January 28, 2025.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:

“(1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4) the substitution of trial counsel 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.”  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth more factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance:

“(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.”

Discussion

Defendant moves to continue the trial to a date on or after October 14, 2025.

Defendant argues that Universal first appeared in this matter on November 27, 2024, and that more time is needed to complete discovery. (Decl. McIntosh, ¶ 7.) Defendant’s counsel reports that all parties have stipulated to continue the trial. (Decl. Intosh, ¶ 5.)

Good cause has been shown.  The motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial.

The Court CONTINUES the trial to a date on or after October 14, 2025.

The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving party to give notice.