Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV17372, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17372    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Oscar Roberts (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against defendant L.A. Arena Company (“Defendant”), LLC, et al. for injuries relating to a slip and fall on defendant’s property.  Trial in this matter is currently set for February 17, 2023. 

On November 5, 2021, Attorney Cruz and the firm of Dummit, Buchholz & Trapp (collectively the “Dummit Firm”) made an ex parte application on behalf of ABM Industry Groups LLC (“ABM”) seeking to advance a motion for summary judgment.  Pursuant to the Standing Order applicable to the court, the ex parte was denied.  The Minute Order of November 8, 2021, informed counsel:

“The limits on the number of available motion hearings is necessary to manage the court’s

resources. These limits work to the benefit of litigants by ensuring that the court has adequate

time to consider each motion that is brought. An ex parte request for a specially set hearing is

essentially a request to cut in line ahead of parties who have anticipated the need for motion

practice and timely reserved their hearings.”

On November 19, 2021, the Dummit Firm filed a Notice of Motion and for Order Setting Hearing Date for Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, for Order Continuing Trial Date to Accommodate Hearing Date for Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of ABM.  On December 20, 2021, the Court continued the trial but declined to advance the motion. 

            At this time, Defendant, through the Dummit firm, moves for an order advancing its motion for summary judgment, which is currently set for hearing on September 12, 2023, to October 26, 2022.  Defendant asserts the current hearing is after the trial date and that Defendant will be prejudiced if its summary judgment motion is not heard prior to trial.  Defendant further asserts that co-defendant ABM Industry Group’s motion for summary judgment is set for October 26, 2022, and having both motions heard together will promote judicial efficiency.  Plaintiff opposes the motion arguing Defendant neglected to timely schedule its motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff objects to the shortened notice period to oppose the summary judgment motion if it is advanced for hearing.  Defendant filed a reply again asserting it will be prejudiced if its motion for summary judgment is not heard prior to trial.

            As the Dummit firm and other parties in this case have been given notice repeatedly, the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, given the impacted calendars of the PI courts, the unavailability of motion hearings is not an immediate danger or threat of irreparable harm.  To the extent Defendant argues that its motion for summary judgment cannot be heard prior to trial, Defendant should be aware that it may seek to file a motion to continue trial instead of seeking to advance or shorten the hearing time on its motion.  As Plaintiff argues in opposition, defense counsel has previously had the prior trial date continued so that ABM’s motion for summary judgment could be heard before trial, and moving Defendant is represented by the same counsel.  Moreover, trial in this matter is not currently set to commence until February 17, 2023, such that there is sufficient time for Defendant to timely file and serve a motion to continue trial. 

            Therefore, the motion to advance the hearing date for the motion for summary judgment is denied.  The denial is without prejudice to the parties stipulating to a trial continuance or Defendant moving to continue the trial date.  

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 13^th day of September 2022