Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV10773, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV10773, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10773 Hearing Date: December 16, 2024 Dept: 29

Oliver v. Gradillas
23STCV10773
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted in part.

Background

On May 12, 2023, Lucretia Oliver, Vanessa Oliver, and Joyce Holloway (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Desi Ventura Gradillas, Joshua Schwartz (“Schwartz”), U-Haul, U-Haul Co. of Arizona (“UHAZ”), U-Haul Co. of Arizona dba U-Haul, U-Haul International, Inc., Amerco, and Does 1 through 50 for negligence arising out of an alleged vehicle accident on May 30, 2022.

On December 1, 2023, UHAZ filed an answer.

On June 10, 2024, Schwartz filed an answer.

On August 16, 2024, UHAZ filed a motion for summary judgment; the hearing on the motion is scheduled for April 21, 2025.

On November 6, 2024, Schwartz filed a motion for summary judgment; the hearing on the motion is scheduled for July 1, 2025.

When the case was filed, the Court assigned a trial date of November 8, 2024. In July 2024, the Court, on the stipulation of the parties, continued the trial date to July 9, 2025.

Trial is currently set for July 9, 2025.

On November 14, 2024, Defendants UHAZ and Schwartz (collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 21, and Defendants filed a reply on December 9.

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

Defendants request a trial continuance to accommodate the motion for summary judgment of Schwartz, which is scheduled to be heard on July 1, 2025. (Lapidus Decl., ¶ 7.)

The Court of Appeal has held that a party who files a timely motion for summary judgment has a right to have the motion heard prior to trial. (E.g., Cole, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 88; Sentry Ins. Co., supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at pp. 528-529.) Here, Schwartz timely served and filed his motion for summary judgment.

In general, motions for summary judgment are heard at least 30 days before trial (although, for good cause shown, the Court may order that a motion be heard less than 30 days before trial).

Schwartz requests a 60-day continuance of the trial date but does not provide adequate reason for the scope of this request. A continuance of approximately 30 days would allow for Schwartz’s summary judgment motion to be heard more than 30 days before trial.

Accordingly, the request to continue trial is granted in part.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS IN PART the motion of Defendants to continue trial.

The Court CONTINUES the trial to a date on or after August 12, 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.