Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV01231, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01231    Hearing Date: June 14, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.

Tentative

The motion is denied, without prejudice, on procedural grounds.

Background

On January 19, 2023, Anthony Nonn (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against The City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), the State of California (“State”), and Does 1 through 50, asserting a cause of action for Dangerous Condition of Public Property arising out of an automobile accident that occurred on May 13, 2022, on Burbank Boulevard just west of the 405 Freeway in Los Angeles. 

Defendants County, Caltrans, and State have been dismissed.

On May 18, 2023, City filed an answer and cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 10.

On May 28, 2024, City filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 30.

The trial date, July 18, 2024, was assigned when the complaint was 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).)

Discussion

City requests a trial continuance of approximately six months. City asserts, in rather general terms, that it has been diligent but a significant amount of discovery remains to be done.  (Ticas Decl., ¶ 3.)  City also contends that Plaintiff does not oppose a continuance, on the condition that the dispositive motion deadline not be extended, which is a condition that is not acceptable to City.  (Ibid.)   

Plaintiff opposes the motion.

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff argues that the motion was not filed and served in a timely fashion.  Motions must be filed and served at least 16 court days before the hearing, plus an additional two court days when service is by electronic means.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, subd. (b) & 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).)  For a hearing date of June 14, motions must be filed and served by May 22, 2024 if by personal service, or by May 20 if by electronic service.

City served the motion electronically on May 23 and filed the motion on May 28.  The motion is therefore denied, without prejudice, for failure to file and serve in a timely fashion.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the motion of Defendant City of Los Angeles to continue trial, without prejudice, on procedural grounds.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.