Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV26823, Date: 2025-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26823    Hearing Date: May 7, 2025    Dept: 29

Camacho v. Chavez Trucking
22STCV26823
Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Radford Alexander Corporation dba Avalon Premium Tank Cleaning.

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice on procedural grounds.

Background

Three consolidated cases arise out of the same vehicle accident on December 27, 2021.

In the first filed case (the lead case, Case No. 22STCV26283), on August 18, 2022, Erika Camacho (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Chavez Trucking, Elfego Rafael Chavez Ibarra, Locodio Elfego C. Barrios, and Does 1 through 100 for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, and (3) negligent hiring, training, and retention.

In the second filed case (Case No. 22CMCV00683), on December 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Estate of Darlyn Michelle Chiticaperez, Darlyn Chiticaperez, and Does 1 through 100 for (1) negligence, (2) vicarious liability, and (3) negligent entrustment.

In the third filed case (Case No. 23TRCV00304), on February 2, 2023, Anthony Chitica, Yoland Perez, and Abraham Godines filed a complaint against Chavez Trucking, Elfego Rafael Chavez Ibarra, Elfego Locodio Barrios, Alameda Pipe & Steel Co, Terra Solutions, Premier Drayage Inc., Reginald Lathan, Nancy J. Lathan, and Does 1 through 100 for (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring, retention, supervision, training, and entrustment, (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (4) wrongful death.

On April 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in Case No. 22STCV26823 against Chavez Trucking, Elfego Rafael Chavez Ibarra, Elfego Locodio Barrios, Alameda Pipe & Steel Company, Terra Solutions, Premier Drayage Inc., Reginald Lathan, Nancy J. Lathan, Estate of Darlyn Michelle Chiticaperez, Yolanda Perez, Darlyn Chiticaperez, and Does 1 through 100 for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) negligent hiring, training, and retention, (4) negligence, (5) negligence per se, (6) vicarious liability, and (7) negligent entrustment.

On June 23, 2023, the three cases were related.

On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff amended the First Amended Complaint in Case No. 22STCV26823 to name Avalon Premium Tank Cleaning as Doe 1.

On November 9, 2023, the three cases were consolidated.

On January 3, 2024, Defendant Radford Alexander Corporation dba Avalon Premium Tank Cleaning (erroneously sued as Avalon Premium Tank Cleaning) (“Defendant”) filed an answer.

On April 4, 2025, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.  The motion is set to be heard on October 6, 2025.

On April 14, 2025, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial.

No opposition has been filed.

Trial is set for July 25, 2025.

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).)

“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

As a threshold matter, this motion was not timely served.

For a hearing on May 7, 2025, the last day for filing and personal service was on Tuesday, April 15, 2025 (16 court days in advance of the hearing).  This motion was served electronically, and as a result the last day for service was two court days earlier – on Friday, April 11.  The motion was served on April 14.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice for untimely service.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to continue trial.