Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV19129, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV19129, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19129 Hearing Date: December 10, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Hearing Date: 12/10/24¿

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV19129 ENEDINO ESPINOZA vs TARGET CORPORATION, et al.

Moving Party: Defendants Target Corporation and Merelin Barrios

Responding Party: Plaintiff Enedino Espinoza

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS GRANTED.

This action stems from a stabbing at a Target store. The assailant was eventually shot and subdued by Plaintiff Enedino Espinoza (“Plaintiff”), while Plaintiff was working as a Watermark Security guard. On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint against Defendants Target Corporation and Merelin Barrios. Trial is set for February 6, 2025. Defendants filed various responsive pleadings and motions to strike. The second amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2024. The operative third amended complaint was filed on June 17, 2024. There has been no prior continuance in this case. Co-defendants BOP FigAt7th LLC and Universal Protection Service, LP have filed notices of joinder to this motion.

Defendants seek a six-month continuance because they intend to file a motion for summary judgment but have been unable to do so without first deposing Plaintiff. On November 13, 2024, the Court denied Target’s motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff but only because Target did not show that the original deposition notice was timely served. (Min. Order, 11/13/24.) The Court rejected Plaintiff’s arguments that a second deposition was not warranted, and instead ordered the parties to meet and confer to discuss the estimated time of a second deposition and the general topics that remain. To the extent further disputes remained, the parties were ordered to participate in an informal discovery conference. (Ibid.)

BOP FigAt7th LLC also argues in joinder that Plaintiff has not cooperated with scheduling his mental examination and there are still deficient discovery responses. The Court notes that BOP FigAt7th LLC filed and served a motion for summary judgment on October 22, 2024, that is currently set for hearing on February 20, 2025—after the current trial date. Universal Protection Service, LP also argues that more time is needed to complete discovery.

In opposition, Plaintiff relies on previous arguments regarding the second deposition that were already addressed in the November 13, 2024, minute order. Even though Plaintiff argues Defendants should have filed their motion for summary judgment by the deadline, it is unclear how practical this would be without the necessary discovery.

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.)¿

On October 22, 2024, BOP FigAt7th LLC electronically served its motion for summary judgment. The MSJ was served more than 105 days prior to the current February 6 trial date and is therefore timely.

Even though the remaining Defendants have not filed their motions for summary judgment, based on the Court’s November 13, 2024, minute order, it appears they have been unable to complete the necessary discovery. In light of the ruling ordering the parties to meet and confer to complete the necessary deposition (and if necessary, to attend an IDC), the Court finds good cause to continue trial to accommodate the remaining discovery. The Court is also persuaded by the fact there have been no prior continuances in this case, and that the operative pleading was not filed until June 17, 2024.

Therefore, the Court continues the Trial to June 16, 2025, at at 8:30 a.m, and the Final Status Conference to June 2, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. All case-related deadlines will follow 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.