Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 20SMCV01113, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

The Court generally uploads tentative rulings the morning of the hearing.  Because of that, the parties cannot submit on the tentative the night before and not appear.  However, if after reviewing the tentative ruling ALL COUNSEL submit, they should tell the Court's judicial assistant when checking in and the Court will endeavor to either not hear the case in light of the submission or, if the Court believes that a hearing is still needed for some other reason, then the Court will be inclined to give priority.

In some cases, tentative rulings may be given by email the morning of the hearing rather than on the tentative ruling site.  Please check your email if you have not seen the tentative.  The email is generally sent to the persons who have signed up for a remote hearing.

For those appearing in the courtroom, the Court will provide a hard copy of the tentative ruling. 

Case Number: 20SMCV01113    Hearing Date: July 10, 2023    Dept: R

The matter is here for an FSC.  The court’s FSC order was given on June 16, 2021.  The court has seen no FSC papers filed and it notes a number of motions to be relieved as counsel for certain parties.  On Thursday, July 6, 2023 (the day after the FSC papers were due), the parties filed a joint request to continue the trial.  While the court would have appreciated earlier notice, the grounds for the continuance are proper.  The parties state that they have reached an agreement to settle the action.  They have been working to finalize the agreement since April 7, 2023 (which is why the court would have appreciated earlier notice—so that it could have freed up the trial date in a manner that might have allowed another case seeking a short continuance to have benefitted).  The court understands that the current hold up is that plaintiff needs confirmation from the title insurer that the description of property is appropriate. 

As stated, the court believes that good cause for a continuance has been shown.  However, a continuance is not really the right remedy.  The court construes this as a Notice of Settlement.  The court will therefore VACATE the FSC and trial dates and will set an OSC re: Dismissal (Settlement) for approximately 60 days from now.  No appearances are required if the matter has been dismissed prior to that time.  The court notes that it is willing to retain jurisdiction pursuant to CCP section 664.6 if that would aid the parties in dismissing the action once the agreement has been signed.

The court congratulates the parties on resolving their differences.  The court recalls that this was a contentious case and undoubtedly the parties had to work diligently to reach the resolution.