Judge: Michael Small, Case: 20STCV15846, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 20STCV15846    Hearing Date: April 29, 2024    Dept: 57

 

The Court's review of the County's motion for leave to file a summary judgment motion has led to the following question:  Is the County conceding  that, in granting the County's ex parte application that was heard on June 1, 2023 to continue the trial in this case, the Court (per Judge Michelle Kim) did not extend the deadline to file motions for summary judgment such that the deadline for such motions  would be tied to the new date for the trial?  The Court asks the question because there is a disconnect between the Notice of Ruling of the June 1, 2023 hearing prepared by Plaintiff's counsel and the Court's own Minute Order for the June 1, 2023 hearing.

The Notice of Ruling states, in pertinent part, "[a]ll pre-trial deadlines are based on the new trial date EXCEPT for the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment. The deadline to file a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CCP § 437c(a) is not continued and is not based on the new trial date."   If the Notice of Ruling is correct, the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment was April 1, 2023, which had been tied to the trial date that got moved through the granting of the County's ex parte application to continue the trial.  April 1, 2023, of course, has long since come and gone. 

By contrast, the Minute Order states, in pertinent part, "[t]he Ex Parte Application to Continue FSC, Trial and all Related Pre-Trial Deadlines filed by County of Los Angeles on 05/31/2023 is Granted."   The reference to "all related Pre-Trial Deadlines" would encompass the deadlines for filing motions.

The County's motion for leave to file a summary judgment motion dances around the disconnect between the Notice of Ruling and the Minute Order.  It alludes to the disconnect. But it never comes out and states the City's view as to whether the Notice of Ruling or the Minute Order is accurate as to the deadline for filing summary judgment motions.

Presumably, the County is conceding that the Notice of Ruling accurately captures what the Court decided at the June 1, 2023 hearing as to the deadline for filing summary judgment motions -- namely, that the April 1, 2023 deadline, which already had passed, was not being extended by dint of the continuance of the trial date.  Otherwise, there would be no need for the County now to file a motion for leave to file a summary judgment motion after the deadline for doing so.   If the County concedes that the Notice of Ruling controls, then the Court is denying the County's motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment.  That is because the County has not presented sufficient evidence for this bench officer to take the rather dramatic step of reversing the decision of a fellow bench officer, Judge Kim, regarding the deadline for filing summary judgment motions.  Judge Kim made the determination  when continuing the trial not to also extend the deadline for filing summary judgment motions.  This determination presumably was based on her assessment that the parties had ample time to file a summary judgment motion prior to the April  1, 2023 and there was no basis to afford more time for that.