Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV03364, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV03364    Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On January 27, 2020, plaintiff Jaime Ibarra (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Mohamed Diakite (erroneously sued as “Diakite Mohammed”) and Mariama Diallo (erroneously sued as “Diallo B. Mariama”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiff alleges he fell from a scaffolding that had been erected at a single-family dwelling owned by Defendants which was being remodeled.  Trial is currently scheduled for February 28, 2023.  Defendants seek an order specially setting a hearing for a summary judgment motion 30 days before the current trial date or, in the alternative, continuing the trial date to August 10, 2023, or as soon thereafter as the court’s calendar permits.  The motion is unopposed. 

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) Continuances are thus generally disfavored. (See id. rule 3.1332(b).) Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates. (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.) Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at 1246.) Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel 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).)

The court must also consider such relevant factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by 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).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendants state they wish to file a motion for summary judgment based on the deposition testimony of Salvatore Costanzo, the general contractor for the house remodel.  Defendants have reserved a hearing for a summary judgment motion on July 10, 2023.  Trial is currently scheduled for February 28, 2023.  Defendants request that the Court advance the hearing date so that it can be heard before the current trial date or, in the alternative, continue the trial date to August 10, 2023 or sometime thereafter. 

The Court agrees that Defendants should have a motion for summary judgment heard, but notes that no motion is currently on file and the Court is not inclined to prematurely grant a trial continuance for a hearing on a motion that does not currently exist. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.