Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 20STCV23203, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Ricardo Armando Nunez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on June 19, 2020 against Defendant San Martin De Porres Medical Clinic of South Gate, Inc. (“Defendant”).

Defendant now moves “for a continuance of trial of this case from June 12, 2024 to 60 days thereafter or as soon thereafter as the Court may deem proper.” Plaintiff opposes.

“The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (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, subd. (d).)

Defendant notes that on March 13, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary adjudication in this case. The motion is noticed for hearing on May 30, 2024. In his supporting declaration, Defendant’s counsel states that “[o]n November 10, 2023 I secured a hearing date for a Motion for Summary Adjudication via the Court Reservation systema [sic] and was able to secure the hearing date of May 30, 2034…Unfortunately, I was unable to secure a sooner hearing date.” (Lopez Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)

Defendant notes that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (a)(3), a motion for summary judgment “shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. The filing of the motion shall not extend the time within which a party must otherwise file a responsive pleading.” As set forth above, the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is set for May 30, 2024. As noted by Defendant, May 30, 2024 is less than 30 days before the June 12, 2024 trial date.

Defendant asserts that “there is good cause for a trial continuance because Defendant will be deprived of its statutory right to have its summary judgment adjudication [sic] heard unless trial is continued.” (Mot. at p. 6:4-6.) Defendant cites to Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529, where the Court of Appeal found that “[a] trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.” The Sentry Court noted that “[w]e are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions.” (Id. at p. 530.)

Defendant asserts that here, “the motion was served more than 75 days prior to the hearing date…” (Lopez Decl., ¶ 5.)[1] Defendant asserts that it thus “prepared a Motion for Summary Adjudication in a timely manner but was unable to secure a Motion date 30 days prior to the current trial date.” (Mot. at p. 6:1-2.) Defendant asserts that it will suffer irreparable harm if trial is not continued.

In the opposition, Plaintiff appears to assert that none of the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 support Defendant’s request for a trial continuance.

Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant is now seeking a fifth trial continuance – their second without agreement from Plaintiff.” (Opp’n at p. 4:21-22, emphasis omitted.) However, Plaintiff does not show that Defendant sought trial continuances on four prior occasions (to the extent that is what Plaintiff is arguing).

Rather, as noted by Plaintiff, on October 21, 2021, the Court issued a minute order providing, inter alia, that “[t]he Ex Parte Application Defendant’s Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Steve Lopez; and Declaration of Jasmine Chavez filed by San Martin de Porres Medical Clinic of South Gate, Inc., a California business organization on 10/18/2021 is Granted. Pursuant to the request of defendant, the Jury Trial scheduled for 01/12/2022 is continued to 07/06/22…”

Plaintiff also notes that the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Continue Trial, and on June 20, 2022, the Court issued an Order, inter alia, continuing trial from July 6, 2022 to September 21, 2022.

Plaintiff further notes that on September 9, 2022, the Court issued a minute order providing, inter alia, that “Reset - Court Unavailable, the Final Status Conference scheduled for 09/09/2022, and Jury Trial scheduled for 09/21/2022 are advanced to this date and vacated.”

On October 6, 2022, the Court issued a minute order providing, inter alia, “Jury Trial is scheduled for 05/17/23…” On May 5, 2023, the Court issued a minute order providing, inter alia, “[o]n the Court’s own motion, the Jury Trial scheduled for 05/17/2023 is advanced to this date and vacated.” Plaintiff notes that on July 19, 2023, the Court issued a minute order providing, inter alia, “Jury Trial is scheduled for 06/12/24 at 09:30 AM in Department 50 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.”

Plaintiff also argues that “[t]he need for a trial continuance claimed by Defendant is of Defendant’s own doing and the lack of planning on the part of Defendant and its counsel.” (Opp’n at p. 5:5-7.) In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that “Plaintiff will be prejudiced in that Plaintiff has made every effort to properly litigate this case, absent the obstacles posed by Defendant and its counsel. Plaintiff is ready and prepared for trial as scheduled on June 12, 2024. Plaintiff will be compelled to put up with more of Defendant’s unfair gamesmanship should Defendant be allowed to continue trial…” (Zambrano Decl., ¶ 30.)

However, as set forth above, the Sentry Court noted that “[w]e are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 530.) Here, Plaintiff does not appear to argue that Defendant’s subject motion for summary adjudication is untimely. As discussed, Defendant’s counsel states that he was unable to secure a sooner hearing date for the motion for summary adjudication. (Lopez Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)

The Court notes that pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, circumstances relevant to the Court’s determination of a motion for a trial continuance include, inter alia, “[w]hether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (d)(10).)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause for a trial continuance.

The Court continues the final status conference to ______________, at 10:00 a.m., in Dept. 50 and trial to _____________, at 9:30 a.m., in Dept. 50.

[1]Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (a)(2), “[n]otice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. If the notice is served by mail, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by 5 days if the place of address is within the State of California, 10 days if the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States, and 20 days if the place of address is outside the United States. If the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by two court days.”

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50