Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV05489, Date: 2025-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05489    Hearing Date: May 19, 2025    Dept: 29

Noriega v. Reyes
23STCV05489
Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On March 13, 2023, Susan Noriega and Mario Noriega, individually and as successors in interest to Antonieta N. Tzapin Elias (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint against Gladis Y. Reyes (“Reyes”), Jaime Beltran Perez (“Perez”), City of Los Angeles (“City”), and Does 1 through 20 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident on February 25, 2022, at or near the intersection of Western Avenue and 36th Place in Los Angeles.

On April 5, 2024, City filed an answer and cross-complaint against Reyes, Perez, and Roes 1 through 20.

On February 13, 2025, default was entered against Reyes on City’s cross-complaint.

On April 14, 2025, City filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ complaint.  The motion is set for hearing on October 8, 2025.

On April 18, 2025, City filed this motion to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

Trial is set for October 17, 2025.

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

City request a trial continuance so that its summary judgment may be heard at least 30 days before trial.  (Rawlins Decl., ¶¶ 1, 2.)

A party has a right to have a timely filed motion for summary judgment heard before trial.  (Cole, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 88; Sentry Ins. Co., supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 529.)  And, absent a showing of good cause, the motion must be heard at least 30 days before trial.

City has shown good cause for the requested continuance of trial.  The motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.

The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or after November 17, 2025. 

The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.