Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV46574, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV46574 Hearing Date: September 30, 2022 Dept: 28
Defendant Diagnostic Services Holdings, Inc.’s Motion to Specially Set the Hearing Date on the Motion for Summary Judgment or to Continue the Trial Date.
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff Anthony J Banash (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Diagnostic Services Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant”) for general negligence. On May 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed the FAC.
On July 30, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.
On August 24, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on May 3, 2023.
On September 9, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Specially Set the Hearing Date on the Motion for Summary Judgment or to Continue the Trial Date to be heard on September 30,
Trial is currently set for December 9, 2022.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant requests the Court specially set the Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on November 10, 2022, or continue trial to after the currently set MSJ hearing date of May 3, 2023.
LEGAL STANDARD
CRC rule 3.1332(b) outlines that “a party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”
Under CRC 3.1332(c), The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. CRC 3.1332(d).
CCP § 437c requires a Motion for Summary Judgment be made any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action. The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before trial, unless the Court, for good cause, orders otherwise. Parties must serve notice of the motion and all supporting papers at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.
“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c. (Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1989) 206 Cal.App.3d 918 [254 Cal.Rptr. 68].) Local rules and practices may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion. (Ibid.)” Sentry Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3rd 526, 529.
DISCUSSION
Defendant filed and personally served the Motion for Summary Judgment on August 24, 2022, meaning that Defendant properly served the MSJ in a manner that would allow the MSJ to properly be heard 30 days prior to trial. Therefore, the Court will grant the motion.
CONCLUSION
Defendant Diagnostic Services Holdings, Inc.’s Motion to Specially Set the Hearing Date on the Motion for Summary Judgment or to Continue Trial is GRANTED. The Court continues the trial in this matter to June 5, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. The Final Status Conference is continued to May 22, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. Both will be held in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Discovery and law and motion deadlines track the new trial date.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.