Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 19ATCV45605, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19ATCV45605, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19ATCV45605 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Hearing Date: 7/17/24¿

CASE NO./NAME: 19STCV45605 OCTAVIO HERNANDEZ vs CITY OF INGLEWOOD, et al.

Moving Party: Defendant Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff¿

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS GRANTED TO A DIFFERENT DATE THAN REQUESTED AND THE MSJ DATE IS SPECIALLY SET

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed the present premises liability case. On December 19, 2023, Defendant Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on March 12, 2025. When the motion for summary judgment was filed, the trial was set for April 3, 2024, but it has since been continued to the current trial date of September 18, 2024. On May 31, 2024, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to advance the hearing date on its MSJ due to the Court’s congested calendar, stating, "Defendant was unable to secure a hearing date earlier than the trial date because, as stated in its motion, the earliest available date for the Court to hear the motion was March 12, 2025." Defendant now moves the Court to continue the trial date to sometime in April 2025, 45 days after the Court hears Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Numerous courts of appeal have held that a trial court cannot refuse to consider a motion for summary judgment that is timely filed. "A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment filed within the time limits of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 437c. [Citation.] Local 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); accord First State Inc. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 324, 330 [invalidating case management order to the extent it precluded filing motions pursuant to section 437c ]; Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 923 [local court rule that "require a party filing a complex summary judgment motion to file the motion six months before the date set for trial is void and unenforceable because it is inconsistent with section 437c"].) As the Sentry court explained: "We are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions." (Sentry, supra, at p. 530.)

Plaintiff in his opposition does not contest that Plaintiff’s MSJ was timely filed. Plaintiff argues that there is no good cause for the continuance; however, the Court disagrees. Continuing the trial date so the summary judgment motion can be heard constitutes good cause. Numerous courts of appeal have held that a trial court cannot refuse to consider a motion for summary judgment that is timely filed. (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529); accord First State Inc. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 324, 330 [invalidating case management order to the extent it precluded filing motions pursuant to section 437c ]; Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 923 [local court rule that "require a party filing a complex summary judgment motion to file the motion six months before the date set for trial is void and unenforceable because it is inconsistent with section 437c"].)

Plaintiff contends that the motion should not be granted because Defendant could have brought the same arguments under a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court examined the motion for summary judgment (MSJ) and found that Defendant raises specific arguments, such as not owning the subject premises and the absence of evidence of any dangerous condition. These arguments are appropriate for an MSJ, which considers evidence outside the pleadings, rather than a motion for judgment on the pleadings, where the allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true.

Plaintiff further argues that Defendant was not diligent in bringing the motion. However, the record shows that Defendant filed a motion to advance the MSJ and tried to have the MSJ heard prior to the current trial date. Due to the Court’s congested calendar, the MSJ could not be heard sooner. Plaintiff also did not cite any legal authority indicating how Defendant’s alleged tardiness is relevant to the Court’s decision to continue the trial so that the MSJ can be heard. As far as the Court is aware, the primary consideration under such a scenario is whether the MSJ was timely filed, which Plaintiff does not dispute in the opposition. As the Sentry court explained: "We are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions." (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 530.)

Plaintiff correctly notes out that this case was filed on December 19, 2019, and is thus nearing its five-year limit on December 19, 2024. However, as a result of the COVID pandemic, a 6-month extension of the 5-year limit is automatically added to this case, making the 5-year limit expire on June 19, 2025. Nonetheless, to ensure the matter is addressed with sufficient time for trial and contrary to the usual practice in the PI Hub of not specially setting motions because of the calendaring issues that arise therefrom, the Court hereby specially sets the Motion for Summary Judgment for September 18, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., and continues the trial to October 30, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. The only basis to continue the trial date is so the motion for summary judgment can be heard. Defendant has not shown good cause to have the fact discovery cut-off follow the new trial date. Should the parties wish to reopen fact discovery, they can do so either through stipulation or motion. All other case-related deadlines, including expert discovery, will follow the new trial date.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.