Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV06473, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV06473, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06473 Hearing Date: April 29, 2024 Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted in part.

Background

On March 23, 2023, Rita Henderson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against DD’s Discounts for a negligence (premises liability) cause of action arising from a slip and fall occurring on May 10, 2021. On May 16, 2023, Ross Dress For Less, Inc, sued and served as DD’s Discounts (“Defendant”), filed its answer.

On March 22, 2024, Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment. The motion is set for hearing on January 31, 2025.

On March 26 2024, Defendant filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 16, 2024, and supplemental declaration on April 17, 2024. Defendant filed a reply on April 22, 2024.

Legal Standard

Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(8) provides that the court has the power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. “The power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) “A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances.” (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.)

Each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits according to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c). The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances of 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 Court, Rule 3.1332(c).)

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 sets forth a list of non-exhaustive factors to be analyzed when determining whether good cause for a trial continuance is present. A court considers factors such as:

“(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 Court, Rule 3.1332(d).)

“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529; accord Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.)

Discussion

Defendant has a right to have its timely filed motion for summary judgment heard before trial. The motion is currently set for hearing on January 31, 2025. The trial date is September 19, 2024. Defendant asks for a trial continuance or, in the alternative, a special setting of its summary judgment motion.

Plaintiff recognizes that Defendant’s motion must be heard before trial but also notes that Plaintiff is in very poor health and asks that any continuance of trial be modest in length. Plaintiff has not moved for a trial preference.

The Court has carefully considered all of the evidence and argument submitted by the parties. The Court grants the alternative request for a special setting of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on August 21, 2024, at 1:30 pm. The Court also grants a brief continuance of the trial date to early October 2024. Good cause is shown for a continuance of the trial date.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part.

The Court advances and SPECIALLY SETS the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (filed on March 22, 2024) for August 21, 2024, at 1:30 pm.

The Court continues the trial date to early October 2024. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.