Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV17292, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17292    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 14

Valle v. National General Insurance, et al.

Case Background

Plaintiff alleges that he properly purchased auto insurance, but that coverage was denied him based on how the insurance broker filled out a form.

            On May 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and (3) Professional Negligence against Defendants National General Insurance Company (“National General”), Integon National Insurance Company (“Integon”), Strong Tie Insurance Services, Inc. (“Strong Tie”), Gustavo Alejandro Baltazar, (“Baltazar”), Efrain Hector Ferrer (“Ferrer”), and DOES 1-25.

            The first two causes of action are asserted against Defendants National General and Integon. The third cause of action is asserted against Defendants Strong Tie, Baltazar, and Ferrer.

            On November 9, 2022, Defendants Strong Tie, Baltazar, and Ferrer were served with the summons and complaint.

            On December 16, 2022, Defendants National General and Integon filed their joint Answer.

            Jury trial is currently set for March 4, 2024.

Instant Motion

Defendants National General and Integon now move this court for an order continuing trial for 30 days.

Decision

            The motion is GRANTED. Trial is continued to April 15, 2024, at 9:00 am. Final Status Conference is continued to April 4, 2024, at 10:00 am. All trial counsel and any unrepresented parties are to be present in person at the Final Status Conference.

Discussion

Trial courts may not refuse to consider a timely-filed motion for summary judgment. Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5^th 84, 88. A motion is timely filed if it is made within 105 days of trial, plus whatever additional time may be added on if the motion is served by email or mail. Id. at 87-88. The 105 days comes from adding the 75-day notice period contained in Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(a)(2) and the requirement in Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(a)(2) that the hearing be held 30 days before trial “unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.” The trial court may, for “good cause,” decide to hear a summary judgment even if the 75^th day of the notice period falls within the 30 days before trial. See Beroiz v. Wahl (2000) 84 Cal.App.4^th 485 494 fn.4. However, it is not obliged to do so. See Cole, supra, 87 Cal.App.5^th at 87-88.

            Defendant Integon filed and electronically served a motion for summary judgment on November 21, 2023. This was 104 days in advance of trial. The motion was not timely. The last day to timely file it was on November 16, 2023: 105 days plus two court days pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6(a)(3). This court is not obliged to hear the motion.

            However, this case is not yet two years old, and the likelihood that it would be able to proceed to trial as scheduled is low. Therefore, a brief continuance to allow for a hearing on the motion for summary judgment is appropriate.

            The motion for summary judgment is currently set for March 4, 2024, the same date as the trial. This date works for the court’s calendar and will stand.

            The next date after that on which this court has available trial slots is April 15, 2024.

            Trial is continued, based on the court’s availability, to April 15, 2024, at 9:00 am. Final Status Conference is continued to April 4, 2024, at 10:00 am. All trial counsel and any unrepresented parties are to be present in person at the Final Status Conference.