Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV28797, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV28797    Hearing Date: February 21, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is a premises liability action.  On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff Sharon Devito (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Quixote Studios LLC, Scott Robinson Honda, and Does 1 to 100. On March 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Scott Robinson Honda, Galpin Studio Rentals, and Does 1 to 100, alleging one cause of action for premises liability.  On July 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Doe amendment naming Defendant SirReel Studio Services (erroneously sued as SirReel Studio Rentals) to this action.

On October 14, 2022, SirReel filed a cross-complaint against The Famous Group, Inc., The Famous Group, and Roes 1 through 100.  On October 24, 2022, SirReel filed the operative First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) against the same cross-defendants, alleging causes of action for total indemnity, equitable indemnity, express indemnity, breach of contract, breach of contract – additional insured, breach of contract – defense, declaratory relief, breach of implied warranty, negligence, and contribution.  On October 26, 2022, SirReel filed a Roe amendment naming the Famous Group LLC dba Hornet Animations as a cross-defendant.  On November 3, 2022, SirReel filed a Roe amendment naming Hornet Animations, Inc. as a cross-defendant.  On March 13, 2023, SirReel filed a Roe amendment naming Famous Group LLC (“Famous Group”) as a cross-defendant.

On January 18, 2024, SirReel filed a motion for an order shortening time to hear its motion for summary adjudication.  On February 6, 2024, Famous Group filed an opposition.  On February 13, 2024, SirReel filed a reply.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

“Notice of the motion [for summary adjudication] and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(2).)  The Court may not shorten the 75-day notice period without parties’ consent as the minimum notice period is mandatory.  (Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 763-64; McMahon v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 112, 116.) 

“The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. The filing of the motion shall not extend the time within which a party must otherwise file a responsive pleading.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(3).)

III.        DISCUSSION

SirReel seeks for the Court to shorten the time to hear its motion for summary adjudication against Famous Group, which is currently set for hearing on February 25, 2025.  SirReel indicates that this was the earliest date it could reserve, despite the previously set May 17, 2024 trial date.  (Yamabe Decl., ¶14.)

In opposition, Famous Group contends SirReel has failed to establish good cause warranting the shortened time for hearing the summary adjudication motion.  Famous Group points to the stipulation signed and filed by the parties on February 9, 2024, as evidence that continuing the trial was the means for hearing SirReel’s motion for summary adjudication.  Famous Group also contends SirReel will not be prejudiced if the Court does not shorten the time to hear SirReel’s motion for summary adjudication, and that advancing the hearing does not serve the interests of justice.  Famous Group further contends that SirReel’s motion for summary adjudication is fact dependent, which requires new and extensive discovery, and that Famous Group will be severely prejudiced it is not afforded time to conduct the discovery essential to oppose the motion for summary adjudication.

The Court finds SirReel has established good cause warranting an order shortening the time for hearing on its motion for summary adjudication.  “As the statutory language indicates, a trial court has discretion to shorten the initial 60–day period to bring a motion for summary judgment on a showing of good cause. Similarly, trial court has discretion to shorten the 30–day period in which a motion for summary judgment must be heard before trial where circumstances warrant.”  (Urshan, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 764, italics added; see Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(3).)  SirReel has clearly demonstrated, and Famous Group has not argued otherwise,[1] that the earliest date SirReel could reserve for its motion for summary adjudication was February 25, 2025, approximately nine months after the previously set May 17, 2024 trial date.  To rule otherwise would effectively prohibit SirReel from bringing its motion for summary adjudication, despite having timely filed it, and would otherwise punish SirReel for something beyond its control.  Or, it would require an extensive delay and the rescheduling of trial.  Because an earlier date for the motion is now available that fits with the current trial date, justice is best served to move the motion date. 

Additionally, although not expressly addressed in either party’s respective briefs, the Court notes that shortening time here is permitted only to the extent that it does not improperly shorten the 75-day notice period provided under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (a)(2), which is mandatory and jurisdictional.  (See Urshan, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 764.)  This is not an issue, as the Court will set the new hearing date to be July 19, 2024.

The Court also finds Famous Group’s arguments regarding the stipulation to be unpersuasive.  Nothing in the stipulation supports the contention that that was intended to be SirReel’s only means of resolving the timing issue with the hearing on the motion for summary adjudication.  It simply provides that the hearing on the motion for summary adjudication is one of many bases for continuing the trial date.  (See Stipulation (2/9/24), ¶¶ 6, 9-11.)

The Court further finds Famous Group’s concerns regarding discovery to be unavailing.  The reason the statute provides a mandatory 75-day notice period is precisely to permit the opposing party time to conduct discovery and thereby oppose the motion.  (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1208.)  As long as the hearing occurs more than 75 days after SirReel served the motion for summary adjudication and at least 30 days before trial, which is now set for September 16, 2024, Famous Group will have sufficient time to conduct the discovery it needs to oppose the motion.  The July 19 summary adjudication date provides sufficient time for discovery.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS SirReel’s motion and moves the Motion for Summary Adjudication to July 19, 2024, at 1:30p.m.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS SirReel’s motion for order shortening time to hear its motion for summary adjudication.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 21st day of February 2024