Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 20STCV11041, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: September 27, 2022

Case Name: Ora v. The Grand Sherman Oaks, et al.

Case No.: 18STCV02815 

Matter: Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

Moving Party: Defendants the Grand Sherman Oaks, LLC and Alliance Communities,

Inc. 

Responding Party: Plaintiff Scott Douglas Ora

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On October 29, 2018 Plaintiff Scott Ora filed a Complaint asserting causes of action for (1) housing discrimination under California Government Code section 12955(a) on the basis of disability, (2) otherwise making a dwelling unavailable in violation of California Government Code section 12955(k), (3) unlawful interference under California Government Code section 12955.7, (4) violation of Civil Rights, and (5) negligence against Defendants the Grand Sherman Oaks, LLC and Alliance Communities, Inc. 

On June 28, 2022, the Court denied, without prejudice, a motion for summary judgment/adjudication filed by Defendants the Grand Sherman Oaks, LLC and Alliance Communities, Inc.  The Court found that notice for the motion was insufficient.

Defendants again seek summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication of all causes of action, as well as the issue of punitive damages.

Plaintiff did not substantively oppose the Motion.  Instead, Plaintiff objects that the notice of Motion is again invalid because the Motion was set less than 30 days from trial.    

Defendants respond that, “Plaintiff wholly disregards the fact that this Court specifically set the hearing on Defendants’ Motion within 30 days of trial. On June 28, 2022, the Court stated three times that it would allow Defendants’ Motion to be heard within 30 days of trial. Daugherty Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(3) states that 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.”

Here, the Motion was set for September 27, 2022, by the Court when the trial date is October 3, 2022.  However, on June 28, 2022, the Court did find good cause for the current Motion date and did so before the Motion was noticed.  While the Court did not specifically use the words “good cause”, this was the ultimate finding as the Court stated, “I'll let you hear it within 30 days of trial, but you (Defendants) need to get it on file right away. . . .You have to file it and get it -- I'll let you hear it -- I'll hear it within 30 days before trial.”  (Daugherty Decl., Exh. 1.)  Thus, the notice of Motion is not invalid.

As Plaintiff failed to file an opposing separate statement, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(3) [“Failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for granting the motion.”].)  Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.  The Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.