Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV26283, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV26283 Hearing Date: April 5, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendants Jason Chapman and Viola Chapman.
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On August 15, 2022 Santos Rosas, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against David W Dewees, Susan E. Dewees for negligence and premises liability causes of action arising out of trip and fall occurring on December 23, 2021. On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Jason Matthew Chapman and Viola Chapman (collectively “Defendants”) as Does 2 and 3, respectively.
On October 11, 2023, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment.
On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint for negligence per se, negligence and premises liability.
On February 29, 2024, Defendants filed the amended motion for summary judgment.
On March 11, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed his opposition on March 20, 2024. Defendants filed a reply on March 26, 2024.
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
Defendants contend good cause exists to continue trial as Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment, set to be heard January 6, 2025, after the current trial date of June 25, 2024. (Jenkins Decl., ¶¶ 6, 10.) Defendants filed an amended motion for summary judgment due to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint; the date for the hearing for the motion for summary judgment did not change. (Id., ¶¶ 12, 13.)
Plaintiff argues good cause has not been shown for a continuance as fact and expert discovery has been completed. (Opposition, 2:8-10.)
The Court finds Defendants have established good cause to have their motion for summary judgment heard.
Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.
Conclusion
The Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.
The trial date is advanced and continued to late February 2025. Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.
Final Status Conference is continued to 02/10/2025 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring
Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 02/24/2025 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.