Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV25124, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25124    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

MARIA BARRERA,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

HY CITE CORPORATION, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 21STCV25124

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS HY CITE CORPORATION, HY CITE ENTERPRISES, LLC, AND GEOVANY MARCONY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

October 24, 2022. 

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

On July 8, 2021, plaintiff Maria Barrera (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Hy Cite Corporation, Hy Cite Enterprises, LLC, and Geovany Marcony (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleged she sustained injuries on July 24, 2019, from using a pressure cooker. 

On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative Fourth Amended Complaint. 

On September 21, 2022, Defendants filed this motion for summary judgment. 

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Notice of a summary judgment motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action “at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(2).  The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.  (Id. at subd. (a)(3).)  The judge may not merely continue the hearing on the motion to a date 75 days after the original notice was given.  (See Robinson v Woods (2008) 168 CA4th 1258, 1262–1268.) 

III.        DISCUSSION

Trial is currently scheduled for January 5, 2023.  Defendants argue that their motion for summary judgment should be heard on its merits even though less than 75-days notice was given because a hearing date in early December was not available.  In this situation, Defendants should have filed the motion, reserved the earliest hearing date available on the Court Reservation System, and moved for a trial continuance to accommodate the hearing.  Requesting the Court to ignore what Defendants characterize as a “technical procedural error” would violate Plaintiff’s right to due process and an abuse of discretion.  (Robinson, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1262-1268.)  The Court declines to do so.  

VI.    CONCLUSION

          In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment is taken off calendar. 

 

Moving party to give notice. 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.