Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV42156 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV42156, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42156 Hearing Date: September 7, 2022 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

September 7, 2022

20STCV42156

Motion to Specially Set Hearing or Continue Trial filed by Defendants Helen Farzad Family Trust, Helen Farzad, and Kathy Farzad

DECISION

The motion to specially set hearing date on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The motion for summary judgment is advanced from the currently scheduled date of July 27, 2023 to October 25, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

Moving party is ordered to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

Background

This is an action for negligence and premises liability arising out of a fall caused by a broken railing in March 2020. Plaintiff Maria Wendy Martinez filed her Complaint against Defendants Helen Farzad Family Trust (“Trust”), Helen Farzad as trustee of the Helen Farzad Trust, and Kathy Farzad.

Defendants filed their motion for an order specially setting hearing date on motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for an order continuing trial on July 22, 2022.

Trial is set for March 13, 2023.

Summary of Argument

Moving Arguments

Defendants argue that their motion for orders specially setting the date of the hearing on their motion for summary judgement should be granted because they have a pending motions for summary judgment set for hearing after trial due to unavailability in the Court’s calendar.

Opposing Arguments

Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is meritless and good cause does not exist warranting a continuance.

Reply Arguments

In reply, Defendants argue the Plaintiff failed to address their motion to specially set the hearing date for their motion for summary judgment. Additionally, Defendants reiterate that good cause exists to continue trial so that the motion for summary judgment may be heard.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1335 states as follows:

(a) Noticed motion or application required

A party seeking to advance, specially set, or reset a case for trial must make this request by noticed motion or ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division.

(b) Grounds for motion or application

The request may be granted only upon an affirmative showing by the moving party of good cause based on a declaration served and filed with the motion or application.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1335(a)-(b) (emphasis in original).)

A party may move for summary judgment “at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).) Notice of the motion and supporting papers must be served on all other parties at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing. (Id., subd. (a)(2).) The motion must be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. (Id., subd. (a)(3).)

“The importance of providing the minimum statutory notice of a summary judgment hearing cannot be overemphasized.” (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1262 (Robinson).) “Because it is potentially case dispositive and usually requires considerable time and effort to prepare, a summary judgment motion is perhaps the most important pretrial motion in a civil case.” (Ibid.) “Therefore, the Legislature was entitled to conclude that parties should be afforded a minimum notice period for the hearing of summary judgment motions so that they have sufficient time to assemble the relevant evidence and prepare an adequate opposition.” (Ibid.) Thus, without the parties’ consent, “in light of the express statutory language, trial courts do not have authority to shorten the minimum notice period for summary judgment hearings.” (Ibid.)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[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.”

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:

(1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4) the substitution of trial counsel where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(5) the addition of a new party if

(A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or

(B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case;

(6) a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth more factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3) The length of the continuance requested;

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c . . . [l]ocal rules and practices may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529, citing Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1989) 206 Cal.App.3d 918.)

Discussion

Defendants argue good cause exists to set the hearing for their motion for summary judgment between October 10, 2022 and February 24, 2023 because the earliest date available on the Court’s calendar for the hearing was on July 27, 2023.

Here, the deadline for Defendants to file their motion for summary judgment is November 28, 2022. Defendants filed their motion on July 22, 2022. Their motion is timely. However, the date currently reserved for a hearing on the motion is July 27, 2023, four months after the current trial date of March 13, 2023. The last date for the Court to hear the motion is February 10, 2023. Defendants request that the hearing be set for a date between October 10, 2022 and February 24, 2023. The earliest date for the Court to hear the motion for summary judgment is October 10, 2022. Defendant’s motion may be heard and be in compliance with the statutory notice requirements between October 10, 2022 and February 10, 2023. Defendants would be prejudiced if they do not have an opportunity for their motion for summary judgment to be heard before trial.

The Court has reviewed the online reservation system. There is a summary judgment slot available on October 25, 2022. Therefore, the motion is granted and the hearing on the motion for summary judgment scheduled for July 27, 2023 is advanced to October 25, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.