Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV27630, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV27630, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27630 Hearing Date: April 22, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Vermont Avenue Fee Owner, LLC and Capri Investment Group, Inc.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On August 24, 2022, Fernando Guerrero (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Romuald Ansermet, Vermont Avenue Fee Owner, LLC, Transamerica Multifamily LLC, Capri Investment Group, LLC, Greystar California, Inc. dba Greystar, and Does1 through 20 for (1) Negligence Count 1, (2) Negligence Count 2, (3) Battery, (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (5) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, (6) Assault, (7) False Imprisonment, and (8) premises liability causes of action arising from an attack on Plaintiff occurring on August 15, 2021.

On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint adding Luis Almonte Sanchez Doe 1.

On March 6, 2024, Defendants Vermont Avenue Fee Owner, LLC and Capri Investment Group (collectively “Moving Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment.

On March 26, 2024, Moving Defendants filed this motion for a trial continuance. No opposition has been filed.

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

Trial is set for June 24, 2024. (Karayan Decl., ¶ 5.) On January 5, 2024, Moving Defendants’ counsel states she reserved the first available date for the motion for summary judgment to be heard, March 24, 2025; the motion for summary judgment was filed on March 6, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 6, 8.)

A party has right to have its timely filed motion for summary judgment heard before trial. The Court finds that Moving Defendants have met their burden showing good cause for a continuance for the motion for summary judgment to be heard as it was timely filed.

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to Continue trial.

The trial date is advanced and continued to a date on or after November 8, 2024. Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.