Unknown

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. I) August 20, 2026 DEPARTMENT I LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

The thrust of this motion is that defendant is alleged to have done poor construction work on plaintiffs' home and walked off the job improperly in early 2020, but because the home was destroyed in the 2025 fire, the fire was an intervening and superseding cause of the loss, and therefore there is no liability. The court agrees that there is no dispute that there was a fire. Defendant's problem is the legal theory, which is frivolous. The fact that there was a fire almost 5 years after the events alleged in the complaint is not a defense.

Case Number: 22STCP02558 Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 Dept: I Please call the courtroom after 8 am to obtain a copy of the court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 24SMCV02786 Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 Dept: I

The court is a little bit puzzled. Plaintiff seeks to continue the MSJ that was filed on June 22, 2026, and is currently set for September 17, 2026--87 days after filing. The case was filed on June 10, 2024--over two years ago.

Plaintiff raises two grounds for the continuance. The first is a conflict because counsel is in trial on the hearing date. The court will inquire about that, and it might warrant a short continuance, but the court is not sure that it warrants a continuance until late October or early November, which is what plaintiff seeks.

The second is to allow plaintiff to conduct additional discovery. Plaintiff states that the Surgical Center's PMK's and Dr. Alessi's depositions are set to go forward on October 23 and October 16, respectively. The court is puzzled as to why that did not occur earlier. It has been two years since the case was filed, and two months since the MSJ was filed. The court will want to see some showing of diligence.

As to the deposition on defendants' experts, the court does not understand the argument. Expert discovery typically comes after the MSJ; the court does not understand why this case is different. The question is not really whether plaintiff can undermine defendants' experts through artful examination; the motion will be defeated if plaintiff has an expert who can raise a triable issue of fact.

The court also notes that plaintiff's declaration is not sufficient. Counsel says that more discovery is needed because more discovery is needed. Nowhere is there any indication of the particular fact or evidence that plaintiff believes will be elicited. The court understands that