Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV04488, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV04488 Hearing Date: March 8, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Continue filed by Defendants Goldenvoice, LLC,
Al Malaikah Auditorium Company, and AEG Presents, LLC.
Tentative
The motion to continue trial is denied
without prejudice.
Background
On March 1, 2023, John William
Babakitis (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint against Al Malaikah Auditorium
Company, The Anschutz Corporation, Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc., AXS,
Allied Universal Executive Protection and Intelligence Services, Inc., Staff
Pro, and Does 1 through 100 for Negligence and Premises Liability causes of
action arising from an injury incurred from a crowd surfer on March 15, 2022.
On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed an
amendment to complaint adding Goldenvoice LLC as Doe 2.
On May 4, 2023, Goldenvoice LLC filed
its cross-complaint against Staff Pro, Inc dba Allied Universal Event Services
for (1) Comparative Indemnity and Apportionment of Fault, (2) Total Equitable
Indemnity, (3) Contribution, (4) Declaratory Relief, (5) Contractual Indemnity
as to Staff Pro, (6) Breach of Contract as to Staff Pro, (7) Declaratory Relief
– Duty to Defend, and (8) Declaratory Relief - Duty to Indemnify.
On May 12, 2023, Al Malaikah
Auditorium Company filed its cross-complaint against AXS, Allied Universal
Executive Protection and Intelligence Services, Inc., and Staff Pro. On May 12,
2023, Al Malaikah Auditorium Company filed its amended cross-complaint against
Staff Pro, Inc dba Allied Universal Evet Services for (1) Comparative Indemnity
and Apportionment of Fault, (2) Total Equitable Indemnity, (3) Contribution,
(4) Declaratory Relief, (5) Contractual Indemnity as to Staff Pro, (6) Breach
of Contract as to Staff Pro, (7) Declaratory Relief – Duty to Defend, and (8)
Declaratory Relief - Duty to Indemnify.
On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed
an amendment to complaint adding AEG Present LLC as Doe 1.
On November 22, 2023, AEG Presents
filed its cross-complaint against Staff Pro, Inc dba Allied Universal Event
Services for (1) Comparative Indemnity and Apportionment of Fault, (2) Total
Equitable Indemnity, (3) Contribution, (4) Declaratory Relief, (5) Contractual
Indemnity as to Staff Pro, (6) Breach of Contract as to Staff Pro, (7)
Declaratory Relief – Duty to Defend, and (8) Declaratory Relief - Duty to
Indemnify.
On February 8, 2024, Defendants Goldenvoice, LLC, Al Malaikah Auditorium Company,
and AEG Presents, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) filed a motion to
continue trial. Plaintiff filed his opposition on February 26, 2024. Defendants
filed their reply on March 1, 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).)
Discussion
Defendants contend that good cause for continuance exists as Defendants
have reserved dates for summary judgment motions to be heard, with the hearings
reserved on the Court’s first available dates of April 8, April 9, and April
10, 2025. (Glinka Decl., ¶ 4; Exh. B.) Trial date is currently set for August
28, 2024.
A party has a right to have its timely filed motion for summary
judgment heard before trial. “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.)
Here, however, Defendants have not filed their motions. In this circumstance, merely reserving a
hearing date and stating an intention to file (no matter how sincere) is not
good cause for a continuance of trial.
Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is DENIED at this time without
prejudice.
Conclusion
The Motion to
Continue Trial is DENIED without prejudice.
Moving Party is
ORDERED to give notice.