Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV32162, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32162    Hearing Date: October 4, 2023    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.  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

BACKGROUND

The complaint in this matter was filed on August 31, 2021. The answer was filed on March 14, 2022. On July 25, 2023, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. On the same date, Defendants filed the instant motion to shorten time on hearing for Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. On August 3, 2023, Defendants filed an ex parte application to shorten time on the hearing, requesting the same relief as the instant motion. The Court denied the ex parte application, noting that Defendants may file a noticed motion to continue the trial to a date after the currently set hearing on the motion for summary judgment, or the parties may file a stipulation and proposed order setting forth good cause to continue trial. (See Minute Order dated August 4, 2023.)

ANALYSIS

            As an initial matter, the Court has already ruled on Defendants’ request when Defendants brought their ex parte application. However, Defendants did not withdraw the instant motion.

            Plaintiffs argue that they will suffer extreme prejudice if the Court sets the hearing on the motion for summary judgment on October 11, 2023 because there will be no time for Plaintiff to oppose the motion. The Court agrees. The Court also notes that the Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub provides that “[t]he PI Hub Courts have no capacity to hear multiple ex parte applications or to shorten time to add hearings to their fully booked motion calendars.” (See Eighth Amended Standing Order § 10.) Moreover, the prejudice to Defendants of not having their summary judgment motion heard prior to trial can be mitigated by continuing the trial date, as noted by the Court when it ruled on Defendants’ ex parte application.  Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion to shorten time on hearing for motion for summary judgment is denied.

Defendants shall give notice of the court’s order and file a proof of service of such.