Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV31798, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV31798 Hearing Date: February 14, 2025 Dept: 29
Diaz v. City of
Los Angeles
22STCV31798
Defendant’s Motion to Advance the Hearing Date for Motion for Summary Judgment,
or in the alternative, Motion to Continue Trial
Tentative
The motion is granted in part and denied in
part.
Background
On
September 29, 2022, Jose L. Diaz (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City
of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles (“County”), City of Arcadia, and Santa
Anita Park for dangerous condition of public property, wrongful acts by a
public entity’s employee, premises liability, and negligence, all arising out
of an alleged trip and fall on the sidewalk on June 6, 2022.
On
October 18, 2022, County was dismissed.
On
November 2, 2022, City of Arcadia filed an answer. City of Arcadia was
dismissed on March 29, 2023.
On
February 16, 2023, City of Los Angeles was dismissed.
On
October 31, 2023, Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. erroneously sued as Santa Anita
Park filed an answer.
On
December 4, 2023, Plaintiff added County as Doe 1. County filed an answer on
January 8, 2024.
On
August 21, 2024, Plaintiff added Stronach Properties Inc. as Doe 2 and S &
H No 1 LLC Lessee/Santa Anita Lan Holdings LLC Lessor as Doe 3. On September
18, 2024, Plaintiff added Stronach Properties, Inc. as Doe 76 and 91, and S & H No 1 LLC Lessee/Santa Anita Lan
Holdings LLC Lessor as Doe 77 and 92
On December 23, 2024, County filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On January 10,
2025, County filed this motion to advance the hearing date for the motion for
summary judgment, or in the alternative, 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
County requests that the hearing on its motion
for summary judgment be advanced so it can be heard before the April 24, 2025
trial date. In the alternative, County
requests a trial continuance so that its motion for summary judgment (set for
hearing on July 24, 2025) can be heard before trial.
The Court does not
have any summary judgment motion hearing dates available prior to the current date. Accordingly, the request to advance the
hearing date on the motion is denied.
The request to
continue trial is granted. County has a
right to have a timely filed summary judgment motion heard before trial. (Cole v. Superior Court
(2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989)
207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529.)
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
Defendant’s motion.
The Court DENIES the request to advance the
hearing date.
The Court GRANTS the request to continue
trial.
The Court CONTINUES trial to a date in early
September 2025. The Final Status
Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.