Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22STCV18220, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18220    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: 45

richard g. rubio v. western regional company, llc et al.

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Date of Hearing:          February 25, 2025                   Trial Date:       March 10, 2025

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         22STCV18220

Moving Party:             Defendant K.B. Construction Company

Responding Party:       None as of February 19, 2025

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Richard Rubio (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on June 3, 2022 against defendants Western Regional Management Company, LLC; Montebello Gardens Homeowners’ Association; and K.B. Construction Company (“Defendant”), alleging causes of action for (1) Negligence (against Western Regional Management Company, LLC and Montebello Gardens Homeowners’ Association); (2) Concealment; (3) Negligence (against K.B. Construction Company).

On October 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC alleges the same causes of action. The action arises from injuries sustained in a fire that occurred on February 8, 2020, in Unit 135 of 1661 Neil Armstrong Street, Montebello, California. The fire allegedly released asbestos which Plaintiff claims he was exposed to. Defendant K.B. was a contractor hired by Defendants to perform fire remediation after the fire. Plaintiff claims K.B. is liable in negligence for failing to prevent Plaintiff from accessing the Subject Property after the fire and failing to warn Plaintiff of the presence of asbestos. (FAC ¶¶ 17,20 (l), 25-38,62-63.)

On November 14, 2023, Defendant K.B. Construction Company filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1-20 alleging five causes of action for (1) Express Indemnification, (2) Equitable Indemnification, (3) Equitable Contribution, (4) Declaratory Relief: Duty To Defend, and (5) Declaratory Relief: Duty To Indemnify.

Trial is currently set for March 10, 2025.  Defendant now moves to continue the trial date so that its pending motion for summary judgment may be heard at least 30 days prior to trial.

[Tentative] Ruling

The motion to continue the trial is GRANTED. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A party may seek a trial continuance with motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rules 3.1332(b) & 3.13335(a).) The Court has the power to grant a continuance upon a showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1332(c).)

Circumstances that may indicate 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 Ct., rule 3.1332(c).) The Court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant for ruling on a continuance of trial.

These additional statutory factors 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. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1332(d).)

California Courts have recognized that a defendant has a statutory right to bring a motion for summary judgment and that procedural rules which restrict this right must give way to the statutory right. (See e.g. Polibird Coatings, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 920, 923; First State Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 324; Sentry Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526.)

ANALYSIS

Good Cause Shown

The Court will grant the motion because Defendant has shown good cause for the continuance as Defendant’s statutory rights would be affected. For instance, Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(3) states that “[t]he 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.”  (Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(3).) Here, trial is set for March 10, 2025, but Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is scheduled for March 6, 2025 which is not 30 days before the trial date. The Court also notes that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was filed on May 7, 2024, which was timely but the earliest available motion for summary judgment date on the CRS was March 6, 2025. (Zubin Decl. ¶5.) Notably, no timely oppositions were filed.  The untimely opposition merely requests that the court take into consideration the numerous pending motions to compel which will need to be resolved prior to the actual trial in this matter.   Given this limited opposition, the Court is unaware of any prejudice to other parties. Therefore, the interest of justice is best served by a continuance.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS the Motion to Continue Trial.