Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV30733, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV30733 Hearing Date: August 5, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
August 5, 2022
21STCV30733
Motion to Advance Hearing Date on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication Prior to Trial filed by Plaintiffs Ruben Soriano, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Maria Soriano and Maria Soriano
DECISION
The motion is denied.
Moving party is ordered to provide notice.
Background
This is a medical negligence action.
On August 19, 2021, Plaintiffs Ruben Soriano and Maria Soriano (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Sadtish Vadapalli, M.D. (“Dr. Vadapalli”) and Santa Clarita Ear, Nose, and Throat Medical Associates and Facial Plastic Surgery (collectively “Defendants”) for medical negligence and loss of consortium.
On July 12, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion to advance the hearing date on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication prior to trial. Defendants filed an opposition on July 25, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Plaintiffs move for a court order advancing Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication from June 20, 2023 to a date prior to the current February 16, 2023 trial.
Opposing Arguments
Defendants indicate they do not oppose Plaintiff’s general request to advance the hearing date on their MSA so that it may be heard prior to the current trial date. Defendants indicate they only oppose the motion to the extent Plaintiffs may seek an order to shorten the statutory notice period to less than 75 days or to have their MSA heard less than 30 days before trial.
Discussion
Plaintiffs seek a court order advancing the hearing date on their motion for summary adjudication to be heard prior to the current February 16, 2023 trial date.
As acknowledged by Plaintiffs, the Court’s calendar is unable to accommodate a hearing on a motion for summary adjudication prior to the current February 16, 2023 trial date. Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs should bring a motion to continue the current trial date so that their motion for summary adjudication can be heard.
Plaintiffs provide that while they may not quite reach the threshold at this time under CCP section 36(d) for trial preference, Plaintiffs strongly wish to keep the current February 16, 2023 trial date given Plaintiff’s current precarious medical condition. The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs’ wish to keep the current trial date of February 16, 2023. However, absent Plaintiffs actually qualifying for trial preference, the Court cannot find good cause to advance the hearing on the motion for summary adjudication rather than continue the trial date to accommodate Plaintiffs’ June 20, 2023 motion for summary adjudication.
The Court notes Plaintiffs cite to Sentry Insurance Company v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526 and Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918 for the position that the court may not refuse to hear a motion for summary judgment that is filed within the time limits stated in CCP section 437c. The Court is not refusing to hear Plaintiffs’ motion. Rather, Plaintiffs’ recourse is to seek a continuance of the trial instead of an advancement of the hearing on the motion for summary adjudication.
