Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 19STCV45605, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Ruling: THE COURT WILL ADDRESS THE MOTION TO ADVANCE HEARING DATE ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH THE PARTIES

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed the present premises liability case. On December 19, 2023, Defendant CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE, LLC filed and personally served its motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff and reserved the earliest hearing date for the motion 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.[1] Defendant now moves the Court to hear its motion for summary judgment 30 days before the current trial date.

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.)

Defendant filed and personally served its motion for summary judgment on December 19, 2023 (Ex. A and B to Reply), with the then trial date set for April 3, 2024. The motion was served more than 105 days prior to trial; therefore, it was timely filed, and the Court cannot refuse to hear a timely filed motion for summary judgment.

The Court’s calendar is congested. 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. The Court will address scheduling with the parties.

[1] In its Reply, Defendant bemoans the fact that the Court denied its ex parte application to continue trial brought on February 15, 2024, which was based on a stipulation, but the Court later granted Plaintiff’s ex parte to continue trial based on an attorney medical issue. Defendant need simply understand the rules related to ex partes to understand the Court’s ruling. There is no reason to bring a stipulation as an ex parte unless, for instance, the trial is within a few days of the stipulation. That was not the case here. So, there was no basis under the ex parte rules to file the ex parte and it was on that basis that the Court denied the ex parte. Defendant could have simply filed the stipulation, and, assuming it contained good cause for a continuance, the Court would have granted it.

Defendant’s current motion essentially suffers from the same failure to comply with the rules. This Court’s Eighth Amended Standing Order indicates that motions will not be advanced in the P.I Hub. Yet, that is exactly what Defendant requests.