Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV27674, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV27674 Hearing Date: June 4, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Specifically
Set the Hearing for the Motion for Summary Judgment or in Alternative, Motion
to Continue Trial filed by Defendant BP Transportation, Inc.
Tentative
Request for
special setting of hearing is denied.
Request to
continue trial is granted.
Background
On August 25, 2022, Patrick Matthew Shaw (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against BP Transportation, Inc. (“BP”), AG Transportation
SVC, LLC, Raul E. Barahonatriminio, and Does 1 through 50 for negligence,
negligent hiring, retention, supervision and training, negligent entrustment,
and negligence per se causes of action arising out of an automobile accident
occurring on January 11, 2021.
On December 5, 2023, BP filed an answer and
cross-complaint against AG Transportation SVC, LLC, Raul E. Barahonatriminio,
and Walter Guardado for equitable indemnity, equitable apportionment,
contribution, and declaratory relief.
On April 22, 2024, BP filed a motion for
summary judgment. The motion is set for hearing
on April 22, 2025.
On May 9, 2024, Defendant filed the motion to
continue trial. No opposition has been filed.
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
BP brings this
motion to specially set the hearing for the motion for summary judgment, or in
the alternative, to continue trial so its motion for summary judgment can be
heard on April 22, 2025. (Gonzalez Decl., ¶ 11, 13-14.) Trial date is currently
August 21, 2024. (Id., ¶ 10.)
Due to the
impacted calendar of the PI Hub, the Court DENIES BP’s request for a special
setting of the hearing. The Court has no
dates available within the time period requested.
However, the Court
does find good cause to continue trial so that BP’s timely filed motion for
summary judgment can be heard prior to trial.
Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS BP’s motion for a trial continuance.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES BP Transportation, Inc.’s request
for a special setting of the hearing for the motion for summary judgment.
The Court GRANTS BP Transportation, Inc’s
alternative request to continue trial.
The Court advances and continues the trial
date to on or after May 30, 2025. The
Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial
date.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.