Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV02798, Date: 2024-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02798    Hearing Date: October 25, 2024    Dept: 29

Kham v. Morlin Asset Management
23STCV02798
Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant ABM Industry Groups, LLC.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On February 8, 2023, Shaheriav Kham (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), Morlin Asset Management, LP (“Morlin”), and Does 1 through 20, asserting a cause of action for premises liability arising out of an alleged slip and fall at Union Station in Los Angeles on June 20, 2022.

On April 27, 2023, County of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as LACMTA) (“County”) filed an answer.

On August 30, 2023, Morlin filed an answer.

On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name ABM Industries, Inc. as Doe 1.

On July 12, 2024, ABM Industry Groups, LLC (erroneously sued as ABM Industries, Inc.) (“ABM”) filed an answer.

On October 3, 2024, ABM filed this motion to continue trial. A joint stipulation to continue was filed the same day. 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

ABM requests a trial continuance.  The parties have signed a joint stipulation to continue trial to June 9, 2025.

As set forth in the recitals of the stipulation, ABM appeared in this action in July 2024 and has not yet received responses to discovery from Plaintiff.  In addition, there is some uncertainty regarding whether County (which has been served and appeared) or LACMTA (which was named in the complaint but has not been served) is the correct defendant in this action. 

No opposition has been filed.

The Court finds that good cause has been shown.  The motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial.

The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or after June 9, 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.