Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV19558, Date: 2025-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19558    Hearing Date: March 10, 2025    Dept: 29

Garcia v. Sunsoo Investment, LLC
23STCV19558
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted in part.

Background 

On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff Josefina Luis Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Sunsoo Investment, LLC (“Sunsoo”) and Does 1 through 20 asserting causes of action for premises liability and general negligence arising out of an alleged fall on July 4, 2022.

On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff amended her complaint to name James Kim (“Kim”) as Doe 1 and Maria Pineda (“Pineda”) as Doe 2. 

On November 20, 2023, Sunsoo and Pineda filed an answer. 

On January 22, 2024, Kim filed an answer.

At the time of filing, the case was assigned a trial date of February 13, 2025.  In November 2024, the Court, on the stipulation of the parties, continued the trial date to June 2, 2025.

On February 13, 2025, Defendants Sunsoo, Pineda, and Kim (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment.  The motion is set for hearing on August 19, 2025.

On February 14, 2025, Defendants filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on February 25, and Defendants filed a reply on March 3.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation): (1) unavailability of trial counsel or witnesses due to “death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”; (2) the addition of a new party depriving the new party (or other parties) from conducting discovery and preparing for trial; (3) “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts”; or (4) “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case” preventing it from being ready for trial.  (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)   

Other relevant considerations may include: “(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.”  (Id., Rule 3.1332(d).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings.  In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.) 

Discussion

Defendants move to continue the June 2, 2025 trial date to at least December 2025. They filed a motion for summary judgment on February 13 and reserved the first available hearing date, which was on August 19, 2025.  (Tofanyan Decl., ¶ 6.)  They seek a continuance so that the summary motion can be heard and to give the parties an opportunity to participate in mediation thereafter.  (Ibid.) 

The law is clear that a party has a right to have a timely filed and served motion for summary judgment heard before trial.  (E.g., Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529.) 

The current trial date is June 2, 2025.  Defendants argue that the last day to have a summary judgment motion heard (taking into consideration the weekend and Code of Civil Procedure section 12a) in Monday May 5, and they filed and served their motion 81 days before that date, on February 13, 2025.  Plaintiff argues that two days must be added for email service (which would make February 11 the last day to serve the motion), but there is a proof of service in the Court file indicating that the motion was personally served on February 13.

Based on the evidence and argument presented in this motion, it appears to the Court that the summary judgment motion was timely filed and served.  There is good cause, therefore, for trial to be continued until after the summary judgment hearing date.

Good cause has not been shown, however, for a continuance to December 2025.

Conclusion

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

The Court CONTINUES the trial to a date on or after October 21, 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.