Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV07650, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07650    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On February 19, 2021, plaintiff CHRISTIAN OROZCO (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant CITY OF SANTA MONICA (“Defendant”) and others.  Trial is currently scheduled for February 6, 2023.  Defendant seeks an order continuing the trial date to October 3, 2023, so that its motion for summary judgment may be heard on the currently scheduled September 1, 2023 hearing date.  Defendant PALP, INC. dba EXCEL PAVING COMPANY joins in the Defendant’s motion to continue the trial and related dates. 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).)

On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.  This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)  

The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier, (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant provides the following explanation of the case, its current discovery status, and the need to accommodate the hearing on its motion for summary judgment as follows:

On June 3, 2020, at approximately 7:30 a.m., 36-year-old Plaintiff Christian Orozco ("Plaintiff") was riding her bicycle in the southbound traffic lane on the 1200 block of 26th Street between Wilshire Blvd. and Arizona Ave. in the City of Santa Monica. As she traveled downhill at an unknown speed, her bike encountered a depression in the roadway, which caused her to lose control of her bicycle and fall to the ground, causing injury. Defendant City did not negligently create the condition, nor did it have notice of a dangerous condition in a sufficient amount of time to repair it. Defendant disputes liability on these grounds, and has sought to resolve the action via a Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication (“MSJ”). However, when defendant was prepared to file the MSJ 105 days before trial, the earliest available date for an MSJ hearing was not until September 1, 2023, which is after the February 6, 2023 trial date. Defense counsel reserved the September 1, 2023, hearing date, and filed/served the motion noticed for this date. See Duryea Decl. ¶2. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §437c(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.” Defendant City was unable to reserve a hearing date which is at least 30 days before the trial date. Defendant City timely filed its MSJ on October 20, 2022. To allow for its summary judgment motion to be timely heard in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure §437c(a)(3), the City must move for an order continuing the present trial date and all related dates. Therefore, defendant now respectfully request the Court accommodate the September 1, 2023, hearing date by continuing the trial date and related dates. The motion is brought in accordance with Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the applicable Eighth Standing Order of the Personal Injury Hub Courts. Additionally, the case is not ready for trial. Doe Defendant Excel Paving, dba PALP, only recently appeared in the case (April 2022), and discovery is not complete as [sic] them. Additionally, plaintiff’s counsel delayed deposition of his client, which only recently occurred on October 11, 2022. Plaintiff testified she may require further surgery. See Duryea Decl. ¶3.

(Motion, 1:3-28.)

          After this summary of the matter, Defendant fleshes out its points in greater detail.  In its argument, Defendant establishes good cause for the requested continuance of the trial and related dates with respect to ongoing discovery and related motions.  Moreover, the Court agrees that Defendant has a right to have its summary judgment motion heard before trial.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.  Trial is continued from February 6, 2023 to October 3, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27.  The final status conference is continued from January 23, 2023 to September 19, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27.  All pretrial deadlines including discovery and motion cut-off dates are to be based on the new trial date.  

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.