Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 20STCV01691 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV01691, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV01691 Hearing Date: September 7, 2022 Dept: 29

Donna Carroll v. AHMC Healthcare Inc., et al.

Wednesday, September 7, 2022

TENTATIVE

The unopposed motion to specially set the MSJ hearing and continue trial is GRANTED. The MSJ is advanced to November 21, 2022, and trial is continued to January 9, 2023.

Legal Standard

Although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation): (1) unavailability of trial counsel or witnesses due to “death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”; (2) the addition of a new party depriving the new party (or other parties) from conducting discovery and preparing for trial; (3) “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts”; or (4) “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case” preventing it from being ready for trial. (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)

Other relevant considerations may include: “(1) The proximity of the trial date; [¶] (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; [¶] (3) The length of the continuance requested; [¶] (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; [¶] (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; [¶] (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; [¶] (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; [¶] (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; [¶] (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; [¶] (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and [¶] (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.” (Id., Rule 3.1332(d).)

Discussion

Defendant moves to specially set the hearing on his Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) to November 10, 2022, or to continue trial. Defendant argues that because of the Court’s crowded calendar, the earliest available date for Defendant’s MSJ to be heard is August 24, 2023, over eight months after the current trial date of December 12, 2022. The MSJ and supporting papers were served and filed on July 20, 2022, within the statutory cut-off for an MSJ for this case.

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).)

In the case at hand, the MSJ hearing is currently set for August 24, 2023, whereas trial is scheduled on December 12, 2022. The latest date the MSJ could be heard, absent a court order, is November 10, 2022, as November 11, 2022 is a holiday. “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.)

The Court finds there is good cause for a brief trial continuance so that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which was timely filed, could be heard. The Court also finds the motion for summary judgment should be advanced so that the trial is not delayed until next year. As a result, the Court will advance the motion for summary judgment to November 21, 2022, and continue trial to January 9, 2023.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the unopposed motion to specially set the MSJ hearing, or continue trial is GRANTED. The MSJ is advanced to November 21, 2022, and trial is continued to January 9, 2023.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.