Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV32053, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32053, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32053 Hearing Date: January 25, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to continue trial and all trial-related dates or, in the alternative, to advance hearing on motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.

Tentative

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED.

Background¿

On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff Carlos Segura (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Nestor Vera, Amazon Logistics, Inc., Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., and Does 1 through 100 for a single cause of action for negligence arising from a two-vehicle accident in November 2020.

On December 21, 2023, Defendant Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion to continue trial or, alternatively, to advance its motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”). Trial is currently scheduled for March 29, 2024. Defendant’s MSJ is currently scheduled for January 15, 2025.

No opposition has been filed by the other parties.

Legal Standard¿

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).)¿ Continuances are thus generally disfavored.¿ (See Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (b).)¿ Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates.¿ (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.)¿ Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.)¿¿

Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel 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, subd. (c).)¿¿

The court must also consider such relevant factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by 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.¿ (Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)¿

Discussion¿

Defendant moves to continue trial to March 17, 2025, or any similar date after the current date of Defendant’s MSJ of January 15, 2025, based upon the Court’s availability. Alternatively, Defendant moves to advance the hearing of its MSJ.

The Court does not have the capacity to advance the hearing date on the MSJ, but the Court finds good cause to continue trial. Specifically, Defendant timely served and filed the MSJ but, due to the Court’s calendar, Defendant was unable to schedule the MSJ for a hearing date at least 30 days prior to trial. (Declaration of Mark P. Nelson, ¶¶ 13-14.) A court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion that is timely filed.¿ (Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court¿(1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 919.)

Further, it does not appear that other parties would be prejudiced by a trial continuance, as no opposition has been filed contending otherwise. But Defendant would be prejudiced if it does not have an opportunity for the timely filed MSJ to be heard before trial. Therefore, trial is continued.

Conclusion¿

Defendant Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.’s motion is GRANTED.

Trial is continued to a date in or after mid March 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Final Status Conference is continued to 02/26/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring
Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 03/11/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.