Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: BC715284, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC715284    Hearing Date: April 22, 2024    Dept: 82

Alejandro Astudillo v. Prats, Inc., et al.
Case No. BC715284

Ex Parte Application to Deny Motion for Summary Judgment

            On August 21, 2023, the Court granted a motion for new trial with respect to punitive damages and set a case management conference for December 11, 2023.  The Court stated: “The Court shall hear dispositive motions . . . at the case management conference.”  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated August 21, 2023.) 

Then, on September 1, 2023, the Court reconsidered its ruling and granted a new trial in its entirety.  The Court “advance[d] and vacate[d] all pending dates” and set trial for February 7, 2025.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated September 1, 2023.)  The Court ordered: “The discovery and motions deadlines shall be based on the former trial date.  Therefore, the parties may not propound discovery unless the Court grants a motion to reopen discovery.”  (Ibid.)  The Court also ordered: “The Court will discuss the scheduling of any motions at the case management conference.”  (Ibid.)  The Court subsequently vacated the case management conference, which had been set for December 11, 2023.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated November 13, 2023.)

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on March 25, 2024, and Plaintiff asks the Court to deny that motion, arguing that it was filed in violation of a court order.  In fact, there was no court order precluding Defendant from filing a motion for summary judgment.  The Court’s order concerning the discovery and motions deadlines governs discovery, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020.  The Court’s order stating that it would hear dispositive motions at the case management conference was not a prohibition on filing motions after the case management conference.  In fact, the Court is required to hear timely motions for summary judgment.  “A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.”  (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529-530.) 

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s ex parte application is denied.  Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of service with the Court.