DEBRA CUMPSTON VS CITY OF CLAREMONT, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******6413 Hearing Date: March 24, 2022 Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged). Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendant City of Claremont moves to continue trial, which is currently set for June 3, 2022, to a date 30 days after January 30, 2023, with the final status conference and motion and discovery cutoff dates to be based on the new trial date. In the alternative, Defendant requests the Court to advance the hearing date for Defendant’s motion for summary judgment to a date prior to May 4, 2022. Plaintiff Debra Cumpston opposes the motion with respect to Defendant’s request to advance the hearing date on the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to continue trial.

ANALYSIS

“Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.) A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance. (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial. Whether the parties have stipulated to the postponement is a relevant factor for consideration. (See Code Civ. Proc., 595.2, but see Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753, 756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely “directory”].)

Here, Defendant seek a trial continuance to permit Defendant’s motion for summary judgment to be timely heard before trial. According to counsel for Defendant, Victor Wear (“Counsel”), Defendant filed and served its motion for summary judgment on February 11, 2022, which service is timely for a hearing date before the May 4, 2022 deadline based on the current trial date. (Declaration of Victor Wear, 2.) Counsel avers his office scheduled a hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on January 6, 2022, at which time the first available hearing date was January 30, 2023. (Declaration of Victor Wear 3.)

The Court concludes that Defendants have shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

• The trial date, currently set for June 3, 2022, is continued to March 28, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for May 20, 2022, is continued to March 14, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

• All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the new trial date of March 28, 2023.

• The hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment set on January 30, 2023 shall not be continued or rescheduled without Court approval.

• No further continuance of the trial absent sufficient good cause.

  Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.