Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV40224, Date: 2024-11-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV40224, Date: 2024-11-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40224 Hearing Date: November 5, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27¿

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Hearing Date: 11/5/24¿¿

CASE NO./NAME: 21STCV40224 YOUSEFF v. MICHALENGELO, et al.

Moving Party: Defendant Hertz

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient¿¿

Ruling: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS DENIED BUT CROSS DEFENDANTS’ MSJ IS ADVANCED

On November 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed the present case. The trial date is currently set for January 22, 2025. Defendant Hertz moves the Court to continue the trial date so its MSJ can be heard prior to trial.

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.)

Motions for Summary Judgment (MSJs) must be served at least 105 days before trial, or 107 days before trial if served electronically. (Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.) On October 7, 2024, Defendant served its MSJ via electronic service. The trial date is currently set for January 22, 2025, which is 107 days from the service of the MSJ. Therefore, the motion is timely. Defendant is entitled to have its MSJ heard prior to trial.

This case was filed in November 2021, and the trial is set for January 22, 2025, more than three years after the filing. The Court is required to make diligent effort to ensure that civil cases conclude within two years (see CRC 2.2). Therefore, the Court denies the request for a continuance but advances the MSJ hearing to a date prior to trial.

No opposition was filed contesting Defendant’s request to have its MSJ heard prior to the trial date. The court thus finds good cause to advance Defendant’s MSJ to December 23, 2024, at 1:30 p.m.

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.