Case Number: BC638690 Hearing Date: March 08, 2018 Dept: 92

ALICIA CRUZ, and RAUL CRUZ

Plaintiffs,

vs.

TARGET CORPORATION, and

DOES 1 through 100,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC638690

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Dept. 92

Hon. Marc Gross

1:30 p.m.

March 8, 2018

The Motion of Defendant Target Corporation to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Alicia Cruz and Raul Cruz (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint on October 27, 2016 against defendant Target Corporation (“Defendant” or “Target”), alleging causes of action for (1) Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; and (3) Loss of Consortium. Plaintiffs allege that, on September 29, 2015, plaintiff Alicia Cruz fell due to a wet floor while shopping at the Target Store on 6705 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach, California 90805. (Compl., ¶ 5-6.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant negligently maintained the subject premises. (Id. at ¶ 14.)

Defendant moves to continue trial in this matter pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c) and (d). Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs did not serve Target until January 4, 2018 and the trial date set, April 27, 2018, is less than three months from the time Defendant first appeared in this action.

CRC 3.1332(c) states, in relevant part: “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. CRC 3.1332(c) lists several circumstances that may indicate good cause, including the unavailability of witnesses, the unavailability of parties, the unavailability or substitution of trial counsel, the addition of new parties, a party’s excused inability to obtain material evidence, or a significant, unanticipated change in the case’s status. (CRC 3.1332(c)(1)-(7).)

Further, CRC 3.1332(d) states: “In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may 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 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; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.”

Defendant sets forth circumstances sufficient to affirmatively establish good cause for a trial continuance. The trial date is a little over a month from the date of this motion. (CRC 3.1332(d)(1).) Defendant has not previously requested any continuances and this request for continuance is not due to Target’s fault. (CRC 3.1332(d)(2).) While Plaintiffs filed this action on October 27, 2016, they did not serve Defendant until January 4, 2018 and Defendant did not appear until February 1, 2018. The trial in this matter is currently set for April 27, 2018. Thus, Defendant will have less than three months from the date of its appearance to conduct discovery and prepare for trial. This is not sufficient time to provide Defendant with a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial. (See CRC 3.1332(c)(5); CRC (CRC 3.1332(d)(11).) Further, this amount of time is not sufficient to allow Defendant to bring a motion for summary judgment, which is Defendant’s statutory right. (Polibrid Coatings, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 920, 923.)

Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion and therefore do not show there will be prejudice to Plaintiffs and their witnesses as a result of the continuance. (CRC 3.1332(d)(5).) There are no alternative means to address the insufficient time for Defendant to conduct discovery, bring a motion for summary judgment, and prepare for trial. (CRC 3.1332(d)(4).) For the foregoing reasons, the interests of justice are best served by a continuance. (CRC 3.1332(d)(10).)

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to continue trial and all related pre-trial dates is granted. The parties are to meet and confer on a new trial date to be selected at the hearing.