Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV23003, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV23003    Hearing Date: February 9, 2023    Dept: 29

CASE NUMBER: 20STCV23003

UNOPPOSED 

Motion to Specially Set Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment or Continue Trial filed by Defendant Religious Sisters of Charity in California  

Background 

On June 18, 2020, Plaintiffs Alliena Bostad, by and through her guardian ad litem, Melissa Neagle, filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles and Religious Sisters of Charity in California, alleging two causes of action for dangerous condition of public property and negligence. The complaint alleges that plaintiff’s scooter came to an abrupt stop on of a portion of cracked and raised sidewalk due to adjacent tree roots on Defendants’ property, which caused plaintiff to vault into the air and over the scooter crashing onto the adjacent sidewalk panel.

On January 13, 2023, Defendant Religious Sisters filed this motion to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

Trial is currently set for May 1, 2023.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Defendant moves to specially set the hearing on its Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ), or to continue trial. Defendant argues that because of the Court’s calendar, the earliest available hearing date for Defendant’s MSJ, which was timely filed and served, is February 21, 2024, after the current trial date of May 1, 2023.

Opposing Arguments

None filed.

Reply Arguments

None filed.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that 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 its Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ), or to continue trial. Defendant argues that because of the Court’s calendar, the earliest available hearing date for Defendant’s MSJ, which was timely filed and served, is February 21, 2024, after the current trial date of May 1, 2023.

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 February 21, 2024, whereas trial is scheduled on May 1, 2023.  The latest date the MSJ could be heard, absent a court order, is April 1, 2023.  “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 as Defendant’s MSJ, which was timely filed, is set after the current trial date due to the Court’s congested calendar. The Court also finds the MSJ should be advanced so that the trial is not delayed until next year. Moreover, it does not appear any other party would be prejudiced by a continuance as no party has opposed this motion indicating otherwise. As a result, the Court will advance the MSJ to May 3, 2023, and continue trial to June 13, 2023.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the unopposed motion to specially set the MSJ hearing or continue trial is GRANTED. The MSJ is advanced to May 3, 2023. Trial is continued to June 13, 2023.