Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV17921, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17921    Hearing Date: October 30, 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 PV Holding Corp. (“Defendant”) moves to specially set its summary judgment motion hearing, or alternatively, continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

The complaint was filed on July 28, 2023. Trial was initially set for January 24, 2025.

Defendant’s answer was filed on October 2, 2023.  

On August 16, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The hearing for summary judgment is currently scheduled for February 18, 2025.

ANALYSIS

The Court notes that the proof of service for this motion only shows that Plaintiff received notice, and not Defendant Arthur Randolph McDonald, who appeared in this case on February 23, 2024. A moving party’s failure to serve the notice of motion and moving papers on a non-moving party violates the basic principles of procedural due process under the federal and state constitutions – notice and an opportunity to be heard.¿ (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 428 [minimum due process requires notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case]; Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612 [due process principles require reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard].)   

Therefore, because notice is defective, the motion is denied on procedural grounds.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to specially set hearing date/continue trial without prejudice.

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