Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV07537, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07537    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed the present case. Trial is set for May 21, 2025. On November 21, 2024, Defendants Jesse A. Harris, Theodora Harris, Vern O. Taylor II as an individual and Trustee of the Taylor Family Trust, and Jeryll Taylor as an individual and Trustee of the Taylor Family Trust (hereinafter "Defendant Homeowners") filed their Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) to be heard on June 9, 2025. Defendant Homeowners move to either continue the trial or advance the hearing date on their MSJ 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.) Defendants served their MSJ electronically on November 21, 2024, 183 days before trial. Therefore, the MSJ is timely, and Defendants are entitled to a hearing on its motion prior to trial. 

Given that the trial date is set more than four years after the initial filing, the case is nearing the five-year statute of limitations and is also over two years beyond the two-year guideline for case resolution under CRC 3.714. Accordingly, the Court denies the request for a trial continuance but will advance the MSJ hearing date to April 16, 2025, at 1:30 p.m.

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’s 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.