Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV01676, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01676    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 29

Mata v. Eurostar, Inc.
21STCV01676
Motion to Advance Hearing Date on Summary Judgment Motion

Tentative

The motion is denied.

Background

This case has a complicated procedural history, which the Court will not summarize here.

On March 6, 2024, Defendant Eurostar, Inc. dba WSS (“Defendant”) filed a motion for summary judgment on the complaint.  The motion is set for hearing on May 12, 2025.

On November 18, 2024, Defendant Tanzey Properties, LLC filed a motion for summary judgment on the complaint.  The motion is set for hearing on February 6, 2025.

On December 11, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to advance the hearing date on its summary judgment motion.

No opposition has been filed.

Trial is set for June 23, 2025.

Legal Standard

The court has the inherent power to control its own processes and orders so as to make

them conform to law and justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).) Pursuant to Code of Civil

Procedure section 437c subdivision (a)(2), notice of a Motion for Summary Judgment or

Summary Adjudication must be served a minimum of 75 days in advance of the date of the

hearing, plus additional days for overnight mail, electronic service, or U.S. mail. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(2).) Moreover, subject to certain exceptions, the motion must generally be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial. (Id., subd. (a)(3).)

Discussion

Defendant requests an order advancing the May 12, 2025 hearing date on its motion for

summary judgment to February 6, 2025, to be heard concurrently with Defendant Tanzey’s

motion for summary judgment, or a date near that timeframe based on the Court’s

availability.

Defendant argues that “advancing [its] MSJ hearing so that it may be heard at or around the same time as Tanzey's MSJ hearing will permit the Court to efficiently address the issues raised by the MSJs, and may ultimately allow the Court to vacate the June 23, 2025 trial date in this matter sooner rather than later, thereby promoting judicial efficiency.” (Motion p. 4.) Additionally, Defendant argues that “an early disposition of Defendant's MSJ along with Tanzey's MSJ will have a major impact on whether this case can ultimately be resolved without need for a trial”; the parties will incur extensive costs, including expert costs, if the MSJ is not decided until May 12, 2025; and the parties will not be prejudiced if the hearing on the MSJ is advanced by two months since the MSJ was served on the parties on March 6, 2024. (Id. p. 5.)

The motion is unopposed.

Given the impacted nature of the motion calendars in the Personal Injury Hub courts, however, the Court cannot grant Defendant’s motion.  The Court has no hearing dates within the timeframe requested.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to advance the hearing date on its motion for summary judgment.

Moving party to give notice.