Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV43411, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV43411, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV43411 Hearing Date: November 6, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27¿

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Hearing Date: 11/6/24¿¿

CASE NO./NAME: 20STCV43411 ROZBEH ROSS MISSAGHI vs EQUINOX HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.

Moving Party: Defendant Equinox Holdings, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS GRANTED

On November 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed the present case, with the trial date currently set for January 13, 2025. Defendant Equinox Holdings, Inc. moves to either continue the trial or advance the hearing for its Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ), currently set for January 31, 2025, so it may be heard before the trial date.

Numerous appellate courts have held that a trial court cannot refuse to consider a timely-filed motion for summary judgment. "A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion 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 "requires 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"].) The Sentry court observed: "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.)

Motions for Summary Judgment (MSJs) must be served at least 105 days before trial, or 107 days if served electronically. (Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.) Defendant served its MSJ electronically on September 25, 2024, 110 days before trial. Therefore, the MSJ is timely, and Defendant is entitled to a hearing on its motion prior to trial.

The Court finds good cause to continue trial to March 3, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. The FSC will be continued to February ______, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Because the need to hear the MSJ prior to trial is the only basis provided for continuance, all pre-trial dates, including discovery cut-off dates, remain tied to the original trial date. The parties may, of course, stipulate to continue those dates consistent with 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.