Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV02757, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02757    Hearing Date: August 29, 2023    Dept: I

The court will inquire of counsel.  Plaintiff contends that the notice was not proper.  If plaintiff opposes advancing the hearing, the court will likely honor that request.   But having said that, the court will not set a trial date that is earlier than the MSJ date.  In the UD context, an MSJ can be brought on very short notice.  But the court has no reason to doubt that Sentry still applies.  A party has the right to have a properly-noticed summary judgment motion heard before the trial.  If plaintiff opposes advancing the MSJ hearing, that is not improper.  But that will waive the right to an earlier trial date.

That said, plaintiff has submitted what appears to be a compelling response regarding past felony convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude involving defendants, as well as a series of checks that have been dishonored for insufficient funds.  The court was unaware of that at the last hearing.  As a result, the court notes that at the TSC, the court intends to set an early trial date.  If defendants want to delay the trial, they will need to deposit funds into court that cannot bounce—such as cash or some other form of payment that is guaranteed.  Under the circumstances, the court will not accept a personal check.  Even then, the court might set a very early trial date.  Defendant may, of course, dispute the showing plaintiff has made, including the convictions.  But if that is done, it must be done with evidence, not mere argument.  As to the alleged felony convictions, while the court can take judicial notice of its own records, it would be helpful if plaintiff attached the specific document for which it seeks judicial notice.