SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On December 10, 2021, Plaintiff Christian Manuel Esparza, III (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants GCMHP, Inc. dba Thomsen Properties and Vista Del Loma, LLC (“Defendants”) for injuries Plaintiff sustained from a fall on Defendants’ property.  

Trial is currently set for December 8, 2023.   

Defendants now move the Court to continue the current date to allow Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) and for to be heard prior to trial, or alternatively for an order shortening time for the hearing on the MSJ.  

 

  (a) Noticed motion or application required  

A party seeking to advance, specially set, or reset a case for trial must make this request by noticed motion or ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division.  

 

(b) Grounds for motion or application  

The request may be granted only upon an affirmative showing by the moving party of good cause based on a declaration served and filed with the motion or application.  

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1335(a)-(b) (emphasis in original).)  

A party may move for summary judgment “at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).)  Notice of the motion and supporting papers must be served on all other parties at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.  (Id., subd. (a)(2).)  The motion must be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.  (Id., subd. (a)(3).)    

“The importance of providing the minimum statutory notice of a summary judgment hearing cannot be overemphasized.”  (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1262 (Robinson).)  “Because it is potentially case dispositive and usually requires considerable time and effort to prepare, a summary judgment motion is perhaps the most important pretrial motion in a civil case.”  (Ibid.)  “Therefore, the Legislature was entitled to conclude that parties should be afforded a minimum notice period for the hearing of summary judgment motions so that they have sufficient time to assemble the relevant evidence and prepare an adequate opposition.”  (Ibid.)  Thus, without the parties’ consent, “in light of the express statutory language, trial courts do not have authority to shorten the minimum notice period for summary judgment hearings.”  (Ibid.)    

 

As to the request to specially set the hearing date for Defendants’ MSJ, as the Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures at the Spring Street Courthouse provides, the Personal Injury courts do not have the capacity to add hearings to their fully booked motion calendars.  The proper relief to seek is to continue trial instead of seeking to advance or shorten the hearing time.  Therefore, the request to specially set the hearing date based on the current trial is denied.   

As to the request to continue the trial date, a trial court cannot refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of CCP § 437c.  (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918. 919.)  However, to date, Defendants have not filed a MSJ in this matter.  (Cole v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2022) 2022 WL 17999483 at *2 [“But the fact remains that the motion was timely filed, and calendaring issues are not a basis on which the trial court can refuse to hear a timely filed summary judgment motion, absent an indication that it was defective under section 437c.” (Emphasis Added.)].)  Nonetheless, the relevant factors weigh in favor of granting a trial continuance. Additionally, the Court notes that the age of this case is still relatively not old. Defendants bring this motion three months before the current trial date, as opposed to waiting until the eve of trial. There has been one prior request for a trial continuance.  Further, there are no alternative means identified to address the issue, and there is otherwise no prejudice shown to Plaintiff if the trial date is continued. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.  

 

Therefore, Defendants establish good cause for the continuance.   

 

Defendants’ unopposed motion to continue trial is GRANTED.  The December 8, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The November 17, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.   

 

Defendants are ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 18th day of September 2023