Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STLC01421, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC01421    Hearing Date: March 30, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The motion to specially set the MSJ hearing or continue trial is GRANTED. The MSJ is advanced to August 15, 2023. The trial date remains.

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) or continue trial. 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 5, 2024, after the current trial date of October 17, 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, here, the Court may not refuse to hear Defendant’s MSJ, which was timely filed on January 13, 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 April 5, 2024, whereas trial is scheduled on October 17, 2023.  The latest date the MSJ could be heard, absent a court order, is September 15, 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 as there are no hearing dates available prior to the date set for trial in this case due to the Court’s congested calendar, and the Court may not refuse to hear a timely filed MSJ. As a result, the Court will advance the MSJ to August 15, 2023. The trial date will remain the same.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to specially set the MSJ hearing or continue trial is GRANTED. The MSJ is advanced to August 15, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. The trial date remains.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.