Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV27068, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27068    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: 29

Linares v. City of Los Angeles
22STCV27068
Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

On August 19, 2022, Gabriel Linares (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), Manuel Ramirez (“Ramirez”), and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for dangerous condition of public property and negligence arising out of incident on August 16, 2021, in which, Plaintiff alleges, he was seriously injured in an accident.

On September 15, 2022, Ramirez filed an answer and cross-complaint against City, County, and Roes 1 through 10.

On September 22, 2022, County filed an answer to the complaint.

On February 23, 2023, City filed answers to the complaint and cross-complaint. On February 24, 2023, City filed a cross-complaint against Moes 1 to 20.

On November 17, 2023, County filed a cross-complaint against City, Ramirez, and Roes 1 through 50.

On December 30, 2024, City filed a motion for summary judgment; the motion is set to be heard on July 25, 2025.

On January 28, 2025, City filed a motion to continue trial.

No opposition has been filed.

Trial is currently set for April 23, 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

The motion is denied without prejudice on procedural grounds.

The motion was not timely filed or served.  A motion must be filed and served at least 16 court days in advance of the hearing date.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)  When the motion is served electronically, two additional days are added for service.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).)

For a hearing on February 24, 2025, the last day to file and serve the motion by personal service was January 29, 2025.  The last day for electronic service was January 27, 2025.  Defendant served the motion electronically on January 28, 2025 – one day late.  For this reason alone, the Court must deny the motion without prejudice.

Conclusion

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.