Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV26465, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26465    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Yard House USA, Inc.

Tentative

The Court will hear from counsel.

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Laurie Scott (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she was injured on March 23, 2022, when she slipped and/or fell on a substance on a floor and/or walkway negligently owned, controlled, operated, and maintained by Defendant Yard House USA, Inc. (sued as The Yard House, L.P.) (“Defendant”) on Shoreline Village Drive in Long Beach, California. On August 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed her complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 100. On September 27, 2022, Defendant filed its answer.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 14, 2024.

On January 25, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.  Defendant reserved the earliest available hearing date, which was April 3, 2025. 

On February 7, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 1, 2024. Defendant filed a reply on March 7, 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.) 

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 contends that good cause for continuance exists as it has timely filed a motion for summary judgment and reserved the earliest available hearing date, which was April 3, 2025.  (Epley Decl., ¶ 3.)  That is almost eleven months after the current trial date.

A party has a right to have its timely filed motion for summary judgment heard before trial.  (Cole v. Super. Ct. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529.)

Defendant has established good cause for a continuance of the trial date.

The Court will hear from counsel to discuss scheduling. 

CONCLUSION