Case Number: BC558436 Hearing Date: May 05, 2016 Dept: 93

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT 93

ADRIANNA ARREOLA, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HANNA SMITH, ET AL.,

Defendants.

CROSS-ACTION Case No.: BC558436

Hearing Date: May 5, 2016

Time: 1:30 p.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR ORDER CONTINUING FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, TRIAL, AND EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATES

Defendant FAIK EZZET (erroneously sued as Ezzet Falk)’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. The trial date of July 11, 2016 is CONTINUED to October 12, 2016. The Final Status Conference of June 27, 2016 is CONTINUED to SEPTEMBER 30, 2016. All discovery cut-off dates are governed by the new trial date.

The Court considered the motion papers. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

This is a motor vehicular accident case. On September 22, 2014, Adrianna Arreola and Kaidyn Camarillo by and through her guardian ad litem Arreola filed a complaint against Hanna Smith, James Smith, and Ezzet Falk for negligence.

On 2/17/16, defendant Faik Ezzet filed a stipulation to continue trial from March 22, 2016 to July 11, 2016.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1332(a), “Continuances before or during trial in civil cases are disfavored. The date set for trial shall be firm. . . . Except for good cause, the motion [for continuance] shall be made on written notice to all other parties. The notice shall be given and motion made promptly on the necessity for the continuance being ascertained. A continuance before or during trial shall not be granted except on an affirmative showing of good cause under the standards recommended in section 9 of the Standards of Judicial Administration. . . .”

The general rule governing continuances set forth in section 9 is that “. . . the necessity for the continuance should have resulted from an emergency occurring after the trial setting conference that could not have been anticipated or avoided with reasonable diligence and cannot now be properly provided for other than by the granting of a continuance.” The matters which should, under normal circumstances, be considered good cause for granting a continuance are: (1) death; (2) illness supported by a doctor’s declaration; (3) unavailability of the trial attorney(s); (4) substitution of trial attorney and (5) a significant change in the status of the case. (SJA § 9 subsecs. (1) – (5).)

Other factors set forth in CRC Rule 3.1332(d) that are relevant in granting a continuance 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.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Faik Ezzet requests an order to continue the FSC set for June 27, 2016 to September 30, 2016 and the trial date of July 11, 2016 to October 12, 2016 on the ground that defendant will be filing a motion for summary judgment. The first available hearing date defendant was able to reserve was September 6, 2016, which is after the current trial date. Defendant has a statutory right to bring a motion for summary judgment. Polibrid Coatings, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 920, 923. The Court’s congested calendar cannot prevent defendant from having an otherwise timely motion heard. See Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 526, 530.

Defendant has shown good cause to continue the trial date.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Defendant FAIK EZZET is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: May 5, 2016

_____________________________
Howard L. Halm
Judge of the Superior Court