Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV17968, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV17968 Hearing Date: October 5, 2022 Dept: 29
Rafael Padilla Perez v. Jesus
Esparza, et al.
TENTATIVE
The unopposed
motion to specially set the MSJ hearing, or continue trial is GRANTED. The MSJ
is advanced to December 19, 2022, and trial is continued to February 13, 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 October 11, 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 September 19,
2023, after the current trial date of November 10, 2022. The MSJ and supporting
papers were served and filed on July 14, 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 September
19, 2023, whereas trial is scheduled on November 10, 2022. The latest
date the MSJ could be heard, absent a court order, is October 11, 2022.
“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 December 19, 2022 and continue trial to February 13, 2023.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the
unopposed motion to specially set the MSJ hearing, or continue trial is
GRANTED. The MSJ is advanced to December 19, 2022, and trial is continued to
February 13, 2023.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.