Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV03287, Date: 2024-08-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV03287 Hearing Date: August 30, 2024 Dept: 27
MOTION TO ADVANCE MSJ OR TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE
Hearing Date: 8/30/24¿
CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV03287 KATHRYN LEWIS vs ZOE DIMME-ALEXEFF, et
al.
Moving Party: Defendants
Responding Party: Plaintiff¿
Notice: Sufficient¿
Ruling: COURT WILL DISCUSS SCHEDULING WITH PARTIES
On January 27, 2022,
Plaintiff filed the present case. The trial is currently scheduled for November
15, 2024. On April 10, 2024, Defendants served their motion for summary
judgment (MSJ) on Plaintiff. The hearing for the MSJ is set for December 6,
2024. Plaintiff requests the Court to either continue the trial date to
sometime after January 31, 2025, or advance the MSJ hearing to a date prior to
the 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 530.)
Based
on the foregoing, the Court will discuss scheduling with the parties. Unfortunately, the Court’s calendar is
generally full, which is why MSJ dates are only available well in the future. Nonetheless, the Court will do its best to
accommodate the parties, within the confines of its highly impacted schedule.