Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV10007, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV10007 Hearing Date: April 7, 2025 Dept: 29
Rodriguez v.
Home Again Home At Last
23STCV10007
Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On
May 4, 2023, Eddie Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Home Again
Home At Last and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for general
negligence, premises liability, and products liability arising out of an incident
in which in which a bed allegedly broke beneath Plaintiff, resulting in
injuries, on July 3, 2022.
On
July 20, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Home At Last Community
Development Corporation (“Defendant”) as Doe 1.
On
March 22, 2024, Defendant filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Roes 1
to 100.
On
February 28, 2025, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion is set for hearing on September 8,
2025.
On
March 7, 2025, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial. 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
Defendant requests a trial continuance so that its motion for summary judgment can be
heard before trial.
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.) Here, there is no dispute that Defendant timely
filed and served its motion.
Good cause has been shown.
The motion is granted.
The Court also
notes that Defendant lodged but did not file its exhibits and evidence in
support of the motion. All evidence in
support of a motion for summary judgment must be filed.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to
continue trial.
The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or
after November 17, 2025.
The Final Status Conference and all discovery
deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.