Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV23342, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23342    Hearing Date: May 28, 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

Defendants Francisco John C. Ferrer, Trustee of the Francisco Ferrer and Carisa Ferrer Revocable Trust, and Carisa Marie Yu Ferrer, Trustee of the Francisco Ferrer and Carisa Ferrer Revocable Trust (“Defendants”) move to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

The complaint was filed on July 19, 2022. Trial was initially set for January 16, 2024.

On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint, substituting Defendants as Does 2 and 3 respectively.

Defendants’ answer was filed on July 7, 2023.

On September 20, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to August 19, 2024.

On April 8, 2024, Defendant filed and served a motion for summary judgment. The hearing for summary judgment is currently scheduled for March 6, 2025.

Trial is currently set for August 19, 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

Defendants request the Court continue trial in this case to May 6, 2025, or any date available afterward, so that their summary judgment motion can be heard before trial. The motion is currently scheduled for March 6, 2025, but trial is set for August 19, 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 May 2, 2024.

 Defendants timely filed and served their motion for summary judgment on April 8, 2024. Defendants argue that the earliest date available for a summary judgment hearing was March 6, 2025. (Flannery Decl. ¶ 7.) Since that date is after trial, Defendants request that the Court continue the trial date to allow for the motion for summary judgment to be heard.

Therefore, since Defendants have filed a timely summary judgment motion, the Court finds good cause to continue trial.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to continue trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

The Final Status Conference is continued to April 1, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Trial is continued to April 14, 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.  

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