Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV01515, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV01515    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Verity Health System of California, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Plaintiff Otis Vann Jr.

Motion to Advance Motion for Summary Judgment or Continue Trial.

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from alleged medical malpractice.

            On January 13, 2020, Plaintiff Otis Vann Jr. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Verity Health System of California (Defendant) and others. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for medical negligence and lack of informed consent.

            The matter was originally pending in Department 27 of the Spring Street courthouse, and trial was set for August 15, 2023. Defendant timely filed its motion for summary judgment and the hearing was set for March 30, 2023.

            On February 17, 2023, the matter was transferred to Department 74. On February 22, the court issued an order maintaining the trial date but vacating Defendant’s hearing for its motion. The court further ordered Defendant to reserve a new hearing date in Department 74 and re-serve and refile the motion.

            Defendant reserved the earliest hearing date available. However, that date was August 18, three days after the trial date.

            On March 9, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to advance the motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, continue the trial date to accommodate a hearing.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            “Every court shall have the power to . . . amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a).)

            A motion for summary judgment “shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a).) A court cannot refuse to hear a timely filed motion for summary judgment. (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918.) Moreover, a court may continue a trial date for good cause to accommodate a hearing for a motion for summary judgment. (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 528.)

DISCUSSION 

            The court will continue the trial date to accommodate the hearing for the motion for summary judgment. As Defendant points out, it has a right to have its timely filed motion heard. Moreover, the hearing is not scheduled thirty days before the trial date by no fault of Defendant. Thus, good cause exists to continue the trial date. The court also notes that Plaintiff has not opposed this motion.

CONCLUSION

                The court grants Defendant’s motion and will continue the trial date.

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿May 1, 2023

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court