Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV33813, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33813    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

TONI DELLIQUADRI, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

MORDECHAY BALAS, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV33813 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OFF CALENDAR  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

February 20, 2024 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Toni Delliquadri (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Mordechay Balas aka Mory Mordechay Balas and David Kroh (“Defendants”), for injuries arising from an automobile collision. 

On December 28, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary adjudication against Plaintiff’s claim for negligent entrustment.  

Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that it is untimely. 

 

II. Motion for Summary Judgment 

CCP § 437c(a)(2) requires that a motion for summary judgment be brought on 75 days' notice: “Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for the hearing. If the notice is served by mail, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by 5 days if the place of address is within the State of California, 10 days if the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States, and 20 days if the place of address is outside the United States. If the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 75-day period of notice shall be increased by two court days.” 

“[T]he notice requirement is measured from the date notice is served to the date of the actual hearing, and not the originally scheduled hearing.”  (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1209.)  “The purpose of the 75–day service requirement is to allow the parties time to prepare their opposition and replies and to prepare for the hearing.”  (Id. at 1208; see Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 169-70 [moving party must file a notice of hearing on the motion for summary judgment at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing).] 

In this case, Defendants filed and served the instant motion on December 28, 2023 by electronic service. With respect to the Notice requirement, 77 days (75 + 2 days for electronic service) before the February 20, 2023 hearing date was December 5, 2023. Therefore, the motion was untimely served.  

A party opposing a motion for summary judgment is entitled to 75 days’ notice to prepare for the hearing.  (CCP § 437c(a)(2); Lackner, 135 Cal.App.4th at 1208.)  There is no evidence of any stipulation between the parties to shorten time, and it would be an abuse of discretion to, for example, continue the hearing date for less than 75 days to cure this defect.  (See Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1268.)  

 

Based on the foregoing, the Court will not consider the motion at this time because sufficient statutory notice was not given. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be taken off-calendar. 

 

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@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.¿ 

 

Dated this 16th day of February 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court