Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV31860, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31860    Hearing Date: August 2, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Seafood Village, Inc.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On September 29, 2022, Ye Lin (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Tak Shing Hong, Inc. (“Hong”), Seafood Village, Inc. (“Seafood”), and Does 1 through 50, for general negligence and premises liability arising out of slip and fall occurring on October 7, 2020. On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff named Harbor Bay Village Seafood, Inc aka Seafood Village Rowland Heights (“Harbor”) as Doe 1.

On March 1, 2023, Hong filed an answer and cross-complaint against Seafood and Chaoyue Seafood, Inc. (“Chaoyue”).

On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff named Chaoyue as Doe 2.

On June 30, 2023, Seafood filed an answer.

On July 13, 2023, Chaoyue filed an answer and cross-complaint against Seafood.

On August 4 and 14, 2023, Seafood filed answers to the cross-complaints of Hong and Chaoyue.

On September 26, 2023, Chaoyue filed an answer to Hong’s cross-complaint.

On June 26, 2024, Seafood filed motions for summary judgment set to be heard on February 21, 2025, March 3, 2025, and April 21, 2025.

 On July 9, 2024, Seafood filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 24; Seafood filed a reply on July 26.

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

Seafood requests a trial continuance until after the hearings on their three motions for summary judgment.  Seafood’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s complaint is set to be heard on February 21, 2025; Seafood’s motion for summary judgment as to Hong’s cross-complaint is set to be heard on March 3, 2025; and Seafood’s motion for summary judgment as to Chaoyue’s cross-complaint is set to be heard on April 21, 2025. Trial is currently set for October 14, 2024.

Seafood’s motions for summary judgment were timely filed, and thus Seafood has the right to have the motions heard prior to trial. Plaintiff opposes the motion, but in the alternative, requests the three motions for summary judgment be heard on the same day.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request in part.  The two motions for summary judgment as to the cross-complaints will both be heard on March 3, 2025.

The request to continue trial is GRANTED for good cause shown.

Conclusion

The Court ADVANCES the hearing on Seafood’s motion for summary judgment as to Chaoyue’s cross-complaint current set for April 21, 2025.  The new hearing date is on March 3, 2025, at 1:30 pm, in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

The Court GRANTS Seafood’s motion to continue trial.  The trial is continued to a date on or after April 21, 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.