Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 19STCV36598, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV36598, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV36598 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27¿

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL¿

Hearing Date: 7/18/24¿¿

CASE NO./NAME: 19STCV36598 KEVIN FABIAN JIMENEZ vs HOLST BROTHERS, INC.

Moving Party: Cross Defendant Bob Hart’s Electronic

Responding Party: Plaintiff¿¿

Notice: Sufficient¿¿

Ruling: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL¿IS GRANTED

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the present case against Defendants, including Holst Brothers. On December 30, 2019, Defendant Holst Brothers filed a cross-complaint against Bob Hart’s Electric. On May 31, 2024, Cross-Defendant Bob Hart’s Electric filed its motion for summary judgment against Defendant Holst Brothers, with the MSJ to be heard on February 11, 2025. The current trial date is set for September 18, 2024. Cross-Defendant Bob Hart’s Electric now moves the Court to continue the trial to sometime in March 2025 so its MSJ can be heard.

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.)

On May 31, 2024, Bob Hart filed its motion for summary judgment with a trial date set for September 18, 2024. The MSJ was filed more than 105 days prior to trial and is therefore timely. The court finds good cause to continue the trial so the timely MSJ can be heard. The MSJ cannot be advanced because the court’s calendar is congested, and as counsel has alleged, the earliest hearing date available for the MSJ was February 11, 2025.

Plaintiff filed an opposition, stating that he does not oppose the continuance of the trial so Bob Hart’s MSJ can be heard prior to the trial date but requests a shorter continuance to January 17, 2025. However, January 17, 2025, would be before the current hearing date for the MSJ, and as the court has indicated, the MSJ cannot be advanced due to the court’s congested calendar.

Furthermore, this case was filed on October 15, 2019, and pursuant to Emergency Rule 10, parties have five years and six months to bring this case to trial; a trial date in March 2025 would be within that deadline. Thus, the court grants the present motion.

The new Trial Date is set for March ____, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. The Final Status Conference is continued to February ____, 2025, at 10:00 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.