Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV18752, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18752    Hearing Date: February 14, 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 Parkwood Landscape Maintenance, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

The complaint was filed on June 8, 2022.

Defendant’s answer was filed on December 14, 2022.

On January 2, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The hearing for summary judgment is currently scheduled for February 4, 2025.

Trial is currently set for April 18, 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 continue trial in this case to 90 days after the February 4, 2025 summary judgment hearing. Defendant asserts all parties stipulated to this continuance and have a private mediation scheduled for March 18, 2024. (Tabor Decl. ¶ 8-9.) 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 107 days before trial. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(2), (3).) Therefore, a motion for summary judgment in this case needed to be filed by January 2, 2024.

 Defendant timely filed its motion for summary judgment on January 2, 2024. Defendant argues that the earliest date available for a summary judgment hearing was February 4, 2025. (Tabor Decl. ¶ 7.) Since that date is after trial, Defendant requests that the Court continue the trial date to allow for the motion for summary judgment to be heard.

Therefore, since Defendant has filed a timely summary judgment motion, 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 March 24, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Trial is continued to April 7, 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.