Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV05556, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV05556, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05556 Hearing Date: August 2, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Advance Hearing or Continue Trial filed by Defendant Webcor LP RCCIP II.

Tentative

The motion is granted in part.

Trial is continued.

Background

On March 13, 2023, Ana Virginia Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, Griffith Company, Webcor L.P. and Does 1 to 25 for premises liability causes of action arising out of a trip and fall on July 12, 2022.

On July 18, 2023, Griffith Company filed an answer. On August 1, 2023, Webcor LP RCCIP II (“Webcor”) filed an answer.

On August 14, 2023, City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Department of Water & Power filed an answer and cross-complaint against Griffith Company, Webcor L.P. and Roes 1 through 20 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. On September 13, 2023, Webcor filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

On September 13, 2023, Webcor filed a cross-complaint against City of Los Angeles and Roes 1 through 10 for negligence, equitable indemnity, contribution, and apportionment.

On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Griffith Company.

On February 2, 2024, City of Los Angeles dismissed Griffith Company from its cross-complaint.

On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint to add Southern California Gas Company as Doe 1.

On May 24, 2024, Webcor filed a motion for summary judgment set to be heard on April 23, 2025.

On July 1, 2024, Southern California Gas Company filed an answer.

On July 2, 2024, Webcor filed this motion to specially set the hearing for the motion for summary judgment to August 9, 2024 or, in the alternative, continue trial.

No opposition has been filed.

On July 18, 2024, on the ex parte application of Southern California Gas Company, the Court continued the trial date to April 9, 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

Webcor requests the Court to specially set the motion for summary judgment to August 9, 2024. The Court DENIES this request as it does not provide proper notice to the opposing parties.

In the alternative, Webcor requests a trial continuance so that its motion for summary judgment, set to be heard on April 23, 2025, can be heard before trial. Trial is currently set for April 9, 2025.

Webcor’s motion for summary judgment is timely, and thus, Webcor has the right for the motion to be heard.

The request to continue trial is GRANTED for good cause shown.

Trial is continued to early June 2025.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion in part and CONTINUES the trial date to early June 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.