Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV24043, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV24043    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: 31

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE TO ALLOW FOR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

TENTATIVE RULING 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue the Trial Date is GRANTED. 

The trial date is continued to February 13, 2024, at 10 a.m., and the final status conference to February 2, 2023, at 9 a.m. All pre-trial deadlines shall be based on the new trial date.  

Background 

On June 29, 2021, Plaintiff Old Republic General Insurance Corporation filed a Complaint against Aspen Specialty Insurance, Evanston Insurance Company, Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Lexington Insurance Company, MT. Hawley Insurance Company, Sovereign Insurance, and Does 1-50.

The operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges two causes of action for Equitable Contribution and Declaratory Relief and adds Defendant James River Insurance Company.

Aspen Specialty Insurance Company was dismissed as a Defendant on September 17, 2021. Evanston Insurance Company was dismissed on July 27, 2022. Lexington Insurance Company was dismissed as a Defendant on July 28, 2022.

On February 02, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Stipulated Motion to Continue Trial to Allow for Motions for Summary Adjudication.

No reply or opposition has been filed. 

Legal Standard 

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 subd. (a).) “Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.¿The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”¿(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) California Rules of Court rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states what circumstance may indicate good cause and subdivision (d) states what other factors are considered in granting the continuance.¿¿¿¿ 

The party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, “must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application . . .with supporting declarations … [and] as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 subd. (b).)¿¿¿  

Discussion 

On July 05, 2022, this Court signed the parties’ stipulation for Leave to Amend the Complaint and Continue the Trial date from December 19, 2022, to June 20, 2022.

Plaintiff seeks an Order to continue the trial to January 22, 2024, and the final status conference to January 11, 2024, or another date that is convenient to the Court. The Motion is brought by Plaintiff but is also signed by counsel for the remaining Defendants.

Plaintiff asserts that it attempted to file a motion for summary judgment against Defendants but could not because all available hearing dates in April and May of 2023 were reserved. (Hutchinson Decl. ¶ 2.) Accordingly, there was no hearing date in advance of the June 20, 2023 trial. For this reason, Plaintiff requests a trial continuance to allow it to file motions for summary judgment against the remaining Defendants.

Plaintiff’s four proposed summary judgment motions seek a determination regarding whether the remaining Defendants ow a duty to defend a mutual insured, American/BCEGZ, in an underlying construction defect action.

Plaintiff asserts that the interest of justice and judicial economy are best served by a continuance by allowing the case to be decided by separate motions for summary judgment rather than by bench trial. Plaintiff also asserts that its motion is timely because it brought this Motion as soon as Plaintiff learned that no reservation dates were available in the two months before trial.

Plaintiff asserts that reservation dates for a motion for summary judgment are available in July of 2023 and more available in August of 2023.

Plaintiff represents that the parties propose the following briefing schedule on cross-motions for summary adjudication and/or summary judgment:

Fe

·       Old Republic v. Mt. Hawley Filed: July 21, 2023

·       Oppositions: August 24, 2023

·       Replies: September 14, 2023

·       Hearing: September 28, 2023

Plaintiff has the statutory right to have its motion for summary judgment heard on the merits before trial. (See Polibrid Coatings, Inc. v. Superior Court of Orange County (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 920, 923 (“fast track” rules directing courts to dispose of general civil cases within two years “must give way to the statutory right to bring a summary judgment motion.”]; see also Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 526, 529.)¿  

The Court finds that good cause exists to continue the trial date. The Motion is GRANTED.  

Conclusion 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue the Trial Date is GRANTED. 

The trial date is continued to February 13, 2024, at 10 a.m., and the final status conference to February 2, 2023, at 9 a.m. All pre-trial deadlines shall be based on the new trial date.  

Moving party to give notice.