Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 21PSCV00293, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21PSCV00293, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00293 Hearing Date: August 16, 2023 Dept: K

Defendant Audrey Marie Holmes’ Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment on Causes of Action 1, 3 and 6 is DENIED.

Background

Plaintiff Sikiru Hamzat (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

Plaintiff and Defendant Audrey Marie Holmes (“Defendant”) started dating in September 2020. The following month, Plaintiff and Defendant decided to buy a home together, as a couple and as business partners, to live in for a few years, fix up, and then sell and split any profits equally. Plaintiff and Defendant purchased the property located at 3414 Patritti Avenue, Baldwin Park, California 91706 (“subject property”) for approximately $525,000.00 on December 17, 2020. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that Defendant would obtain the financing to purchase the subject property and that once escrow closed Plaintiff would be placed on title to same as a one-half joint owner. Plaintiff paid tens of thousands of dollars to Defendant to fund the escrow account used to purchase the subject property. Plaintiff thereafter spent a substantial amount of time improving and furnishing the subject property. Plaintiff also paid over 50% of the subject property’s loan and a majority of the utilities. Plaintiff was never put on title, as promised. On April 7, 2021, Defendant evicted Plaintiff from the subject property.

On March 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant, all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the Property adverse to Plaintiff's title or any cloud on Plaintiff's title to the Property and Does 1-5 for:

1. Breach of Contract

2. Fraudulent Inducement

3. Unlawful Eviction

4. Unjust Enrichment

5. Declaratory Relief

6. Specific Performance

7. Conversion

8. Quiet Title

The Final Status Conference is set for November 3, 2023. Trial is set for November 17, 2023.

Discussion

Defendant moves the court for leave to file her motion for summary judgment on the first, third and sixth causes of action.

The motion is denied. Trial is currently scheduled for November 17, 2023, a mere 93 days away from the instant hearing date. The court may not shorten the 75-day notice period without the parties’ consent. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c, subdivision (a) gives the court power to shorten time on other summary judgment rime requirements (i.e., “[t]he motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise”), but not on the 75-day notice of hearing. (McMahon v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4^th 112, 116; Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4^th 758, 763). As to the 30-day deadline, the court must make a separate order finding “good cause” before the motion is filed.

Defendant has not set forth “good cause” warranting the shortening of the 30-day period. On June 13, 2023, the court continued the trial date to November 17, 2023. The 30-day “cut-off” under Code of Civil Procedure § 437c is measured from the trial date in effect when the summary judgment motion is made; as such, a continuance of the trial date “reopens” the time for such motions. (Green v. Bristol Myers Co. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 604, 609; Soderberg v. McKinney (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1760, 1765, fn. 4). Defendant had ample time to timely file any desired motion for summary judgment based on the new trial date (i.e., up to August 4, 2023), but failed to do so.