Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV12393, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV12393 Hearing Date: March 27, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendant Bahman Omrani’s unopposed motion to specially set the MSJ
hearing or continue trial is GRANTED. The MSJ is advanced to June 29, 2023 at 1:30 p.m.
Trial is continued to August 8, 2023. Discovery and motion cutoff dates shall
be based on the new trial date.
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 continue trial or
specially set the hearing on his Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ). Defendant
argues that due to the Court’s congested calendar, the earliest available date
for Defendant’s MSJ, which was timely filed and served, to be heard is April 8,
2024, after the current trial date of May 26, 2023.
It is well
established that a court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion that
is timely filed.¿ (Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court¿(1988) 206
Cal.App.3d 918, 919¿[“We are asked to determine whether the trial court may
refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of Code
of Civil Procedure section 437c.¿We determine it may not”]; Sentry Ins. Co.
v. Superior Court¿(1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 530¿[“We are sympathetic to
the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many
motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot
rest in a refusal to hear timely motions.”].)¿¿¿¿
As such, the Court
may not refuse to hear Defendant’s MSJ, which was timely filed on January 20,
2023, here.
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 April 8, 2024, whereas trial is scheduled on May 26, 2023. The
latest date the MSJ could be heard, absent a court order, is April 26, 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
the MSJ should be advanced so that the trial is not delayed until 2024. As a
result, the Court will advance the MSJ to June 29, 2023. Moreover, the Court
finds good cause to continue trial due to the Court’s congested calendar. Further,
it does not appear any party would be prejudiced by a short continuance and no
party has filed an opposition contending otherwise. Thus, Defendant’s motion is
granted, and trial is continued to August 8, 2023.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the
motion to specially set the MSJ hearing or continue trial is GRANTED. The MSJ
is advanced to June 29, 2023. Trial is continued to August 8, 2023. Discovery
and motion cutoff dates shall be based on the new trial date.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.