Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV16893, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16893    Hearing Date: June 6, 2024    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

MOTION

Defendant Sixt Rent A Car, LLC (“Defendant”) moves to advance its summary judgment hearing date from June 27, 2025 to June 21, 2024, or in the alternative, continue trial to August 1, 2025. Plaintiff Martinique Latrell Brown (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion to advance the hearing date but does not oppose the motion to continue trial.

BACKGROUND

The complaint was filed on May 23, 2022. Trial was initially set for November 20, 2023.

Defendant filed its answer on July 6, 2022.

On October 30, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to July 22, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1335 states as follows:¿¿ 

¿ 

(a) Noticed motion or application required¿ 

A party seeking to advance, specially set, or reset a case for trial must make this request by noticed motion or ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division.¿ 

(b) Grounds for motion or application¿ 

The request may be granted only upon an affirmative showing by the moving party of good cause based on a declaration served and filed with the motion or application.¿ 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1335(a)-(b).)¿ 

A party may move for summary judgment “at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).)¿ Notice of the motion and supporting papers must be served on all other parties at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.¿ (Id., subd. (a)(2).)¿ The motion must be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.¿ (Id., subd. (a)(3).)¿¿¿ 

“The importance of providing the minimum statutory notice of a summary judgment hearing cannot be overemphasized.”¿ (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1262 (Robinson).)¿ “Because it is potentially case dispositive and usually requires considerable time and effort to prepare, a summary judgment motion is perhaps the most important pretrial motion in a civil case.”¿ (Ibid.)¿ “Therefore, the Legislature was entitled to conclude that parties should be afforded a minimum notice period for the hearing of summary judgment motions so that they have sufficient time to assemble the relevant evidence and prepare an adequate opposition.”¿ (Ibid.)¿ Thus, without the parties’ consent, “in light of the express statutory language, trial courts do not have authority to shorten the minimum notice period for summary judgment hearings.”¿ (Ibid.)¿¿¿ 

Discussion

Defendant requests the Court advance its June 27, 2025 summary judgment hearing date or continue trial after the hearing. Trial is currently set for July 22, 2024. A party that timely files a motion for summary judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c has a right to have their motion heard before the start of trial. (Cole v. Superior Court¿(2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.) If served electronically, a motion for summary judgment must be made at least 105 days before trial, plus two court days. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(2), (3).) Therefore, a motion for summary judgment in this case needed to be filed by April 4, 2024.

 Defendant served its motion for summary judgment via electronic service, on April 12, 2024. Defendant argues that the earliest date available for a summary judgment hearing was June 27, 2025. (Bridwell Decl. ¶ 4.) Since that date is after trial, Defendant requests that the Court either advance the hearing or continue the trial date to allow for the motion to be heard.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that if the hearing date is advanced, then Plaintiff would have less time to oppose. The Court agrees and finds that if the hearing were advanced to June 21, 2024, that would only provide 70 days’ notice to Plaintiff—below the statutory minimum. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not oppose continuing trial until after the summary judgment hearing is held.

Therefore, seeing that Defendant has filed a summary judgment motion, Plaintiff does not oppose a continuance, and trial has only been continued once, the Court finds good cause to continue trial.

Accordingly, the Court grants in part the motion to continue trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to continue trial.

The Final Status Conference is continued to July 14, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Trial is continued to July 28, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be in accordance with the new trial date.  

Defendant shall give notice of this order, and file a proof of service of such.