Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV22844, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV22844 Hearing Date: January 6, 2025 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
JOSE GARCIA Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al Defendants. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE] MOTION TO
CONTINUE IS GRANTED Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. January 6, 2024 |
On September 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present case, with the
trial date currently set for March 19, 2025. Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT moves to either continue the trial or advance the hearing for its
Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ), currently set for July 8, 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 November 18, 2024, 121 days before trial.
Therefore, the MSJ is timely, and Defendant is entitled to a hearing on its
motion prior to trial.
Given
that the case was filed on September 20, 2023, the court finds good cause to
grant a continuance of trial to September 8, 2025,
at 8:30 a.m., and the final status conference to August 25, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.. Trial-related deadlines are not to follow
the continued trial date, as continuing the trial date to allow for the hearing
of the motion for summary judgment does not justify reopening pre-trial
activities. The parties may, however,
stipulate to continue these dates; or, a party can bring a motion to continue
any such dates.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Lee S. Arian Judge of the Superior Court |