Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV19504, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV19504, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19504 Hearing Date: January 21, 2025 Dept: 29

Ploozian v. Prince
23STCV19504
Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is denied.

Background

On August 15, 2023, Alice Arabyan Ploozian (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Harvey Prince, Suzanne Prince, and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (4) negligent entrustment, arising out of an alleged accident on March 23, 2022.

On December 14, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Prince Family Trust as Doe 1.

On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against the same defendants asserting the same four causes of action.

On December 29, 2023, Defendants Harvey Prince and Suzanne Prince filed an answer to the FAC.

On January 12, 2024, the Prince Family Trust filed an answer to the FAC.

On January 26, 2024, Harvey Prince died. (Motion, Exh. A.)

On August 22, 2024, counsel filed a motion for summary adjudication on behalf of Harvey Prince. The motion was noticed for hearing on November 13, 2024, in Department 30 of the Spring Street Courthouse. On the date of the hearing, counsel learned that Department 30 had been closed, and the case reassigned to a new department.

On December 16, 2024, counsel filed a new motion for summary adjudication on behalf of Harvey Prince. The motion was noticed for hearing on July 15, 2025.

Trial is set for February 11, 2025.

On December 18, 2024, Defendant Suzanne Prince (“Defendant”) filed this motion to continue this matter.

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 seeks to continue trial until after the hearing on the summary adjudication motion filed on behalf of co-defendant Harvey Prince, scheduled for July 15, 2025.

Harvey Prince, however, is deceased. The Court has no jurisdiction to enter judgment in his favor or against him. (Herring v. Peterson (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 608, 611–612.) Moreover, when a client dies, the power of the attorney to act on behalf of the client terminates. (Id. at p. 612.) These raises substantial questions regarding whether the summary adjudication motion was properly filed.

When a defendant dies, a plaintiff may file a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.41 to continue the action against the decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest. Or the plaintiff may elect to proceed against an insured decedent under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 377.50 and Probate Code sections 550 through 554.

So far, Plaintiff has not exercised either option. Unless Plaintiff does so, trial will proceed against only the other defendants, as the court has no jurisdiction over a deceased party. But the filing of a summary adjudication motion on behalf of a deceased party is not itself an action that provides good cause to continue trial. And Defendant does not offer any other reason for trial to be continued.

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is denied.

In addition, now that the Court has been informed that one of the defendants has died, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause regarding whether that defendant should be dismissed without prejudice, and the motion for summary adjudication filed on behalf of the deceased defendant should be placed off calendar.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to continue trial.

The Court SETS an Order to Show Cause regarding why (1) the causes of action asserted in the First Amended Complaint against Defendant Harvey Prince, now deceased, should be dismissed without prejudice; and (2) the motion for summary adjudication filed on behalf of Defendant Harvey Prince should be placed off calendar. The hearing on the OSC is set for 2/11/25 at 8:30 am in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Any response to the OSC must be filed and served no later than January 30, 2025.

The Court ORDERS counsel for all parties to meet and confer regarding the status of the causes of action asserted against Harvey Prince by no later than January 28, 2025.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.