Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32379, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV32379 Hearing Date: March 1, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Specially Set Hearing for Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, to Continue Trial Date, filed by Defendant Walmart, Inc.
Tentative
The motion to continue trial is granted.
Background
On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff Sofia Aparicio (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against Walmart, Inc. (“Defendant”), Brooke Bramlett, and Does 1 to 20 for General Negligence and Premises Liability causes of action from a slip and fall occurring on October 5, 2020.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 2, 2024.
On December 12, 2023, Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment. The hearing is set for March 3, 2025.
On February 2, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to advance the hearing for the motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, to continue trial. Plaintiff filed a “contingent non-opposition” on February 16, 2024.
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).)
“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
Defendant contends that there is good cause to advance the hearing for summary judgment. The Court cannot accommodate that request as it has no available hearing dates for a motion for summary judgment prior to the trial.
In the alternative, the parties jointly propose a summary judgment hearing in July. The Court does not have available hearing dates for a motion for summary judgment in July.
Defendant requests in the alternative to continue trial. Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition that is “contingent upon continuance to a trial date that is not beyond six months from the current trial date, or no later than October 2, 2024.”
Because of the impacted calendar of the Personal Injury Hub courts, the Court cannot accommodate the request to advance or specially set the hearing date on the summary judgment motion. Of course, the parties are free to check to see whether an earlier date is available on the CRS system.
The Court finds Defendant has shown good cause for a continuance, as Defendant has the right to have the motion for summary judgment heard prior to trial. Accordingly, the Court continues trial to late April 2025.
Conclusion
Defendant’s motion to advance the hearing for summary judgment is DENIED.
Defendant’s motion to continue trial is GRANTED.
The Court continues the trial to a date in late April 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new hearing date.
Final Status Conference is continued to 04/02/2025 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 04/16/2025 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse.
On the Court's own motion, the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal scheduled for 09/30/2024 is
advanced to this date and vacated.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.