Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV29851, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV29851 Hearing Date: February 9, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Continue Trial Date, filed by Defendant Bipco Investments.
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On September 13, 2022, Plaintiffs Susie Mamzhi and Gennady Mamzhi (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and Does 1 through 50, asserting the causes of action for (1) Dangerous Condition of Public Property, (2) Premises Liability/Negligence, and (3) Loss of Consortium from a trip and fall incident occurring on February 10, 2022.
On February 21, 2023, Plaintiffs amended their Complaint to name Bipco Investments (“Moving Defendant”) as Doe 1, and New Old Coach, LLC as Doe 2.
On December 11, 2023, Moving Defendant this motion to continue the trial. No opposition has been filed.
On December 21, 2023, Plaintiffs amended their Complaint to name 9700 Pico Corp. as Doe 3. On January 31, 2024, 9700 Pico Corp., filed its Answer and a cross-complaint against City of Los Angeles and Roes 1 through 100.
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).)
Discussion
Moving Defendant states first appeared in this matter on June 16, 2023. (Manzi Decl., ¶7.) Moving Defendant determined there are grounds for a Motion for Summary Judgment and reserved the first available hearing for September 12, 2024. (Id., ¶ 9, 10.) The motion was filed on January 5, 2024.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 12, 2024.
No opposition to the motion to continue trial has been filed.
The Court also notes that a new party, 9700 Pico Corp., just appeared on January 31, 2024, while this motion was pending.
The Court finds that Moving Defendant has made a showing of good cause to continue the trial date. Therefore, Moving Defendant’s Motion to Continue is GRANTED.
Conclusion
The Motion to Continue is GRANTED.
The date of trial is advanced and continued to November 5, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.
Final Status Conference is continued to 10/22/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring
Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 11/05/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.