Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 24STCV00867, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCV00867, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00867 Hearing Date: February 4, 2025 Dept: 14

Case Background

This is a lemon law action.

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff Damien Israel Barr filed his Complaint against Defendant BMW of North America, LLC.

On December 17, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.

On January 10, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to advance the hearing on its motion for summary judgment.

Trial is currently set for May 27, 2025.

Instant Pleading

Defendant moves to advance the hearing on its motion for summary judgment.

Decision

Defendant’s motion to advance the hearing on its motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The motion will now be heard on April 24, 2025. Defendant is to serve notice of the new hearing date within 10 days of this order.

Discussion

A motion for summary judgment or adjudication must be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial unless a judge orders otherwise for good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., section 437c(a)(3).) A party may not notice a motion for summary judgment for hearing within 30 days of the trial date without first obtaining a determination of good cause from the court. (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1268.) Such notice is invalid unless and until a court makes a determination that good cause exists to hear the motion later than 30 days before trial. (Id.) The Court lacks the authority to continue a summary judgment hearing to cure insufficient notice. (Robinson, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at pp.1267-1268.)

Here, Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment with sufficient time to give Plaintiff 75 days of notice and for the motion to be heard at least 30 days before trial as required by Code Civ. Proc., section 437c (before the 2025 amendment). However, the first available date in the Court’s calendar to hear this motion for summary judgment was May 5, 2025, which is less than 30 days before trial. (Yelda Decl., ¶11.) Because Defendant could not secure an earlier hearing date due to unavailability in the Court’s calendar, the Court finds good cause to advance the hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff opposes this motion on the grounds that it intends to file a motion for leave to amend which, if granted, would moot Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not filed this motion and the MSJ is not yet moot. Thus, the Court’s analysis is unchanged.

Conclusion