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 where counsel has been diligent, the party opposing summary judgment has the right to a continuance to take discovery that is believed will yield evidence to defeat the motion. But that does not extend to a fishing expedition or to a continuance due to lack of diligence. In short, these papers are not sufficient, except, perhaps for a short continuance due to the conflict. For now, though, the court's inclination is to DENY the motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE to allow plaintiff to file a more detailed application.

If plaintiff is going to file that detailed application, sooner is better than later.

Case Number: 24SMCV04025 Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 Dept: I The court has before it a motion to compel the further deposition of plaintiff and to continue the trial. However, on Tuesday the parties reached an agreement that there will be a second day of deposition and to continue the trial. The motion to compel is therefore MOOT. The stipulation to continue the trial, though, requires the court's approval. The court agrees that the trial date cannot be maintained. The court is troubled because at the CMC the court told the parties that there would be no continuances absent circumstances that are truly unforeseen and unforeseeable.

But the court has to agree that the allegation that the accident has caused plaintiff to become suicidal and in fact attempt suicide multiple times (once before suit was filed) is fundamentally different than simply stating that there were injuries from an auto accident. The case exposure changes, the questions that need to be asked change, the need for experts changes. Defendants contend that they did not foresee that change until recently and that they could not reasonably have been expected to do so.

Of course, plaintiff knew, but the fact remains that defendants apparently did not. Given that, it is just not practical to maintain an October trial date and a fact discovery cut off a month from now in light of these major case developments. The court also agrees that good cause has been shown for an additional day of deposition. The motion is therefore GRANTED. The FSC and trial dates are VACATED, and the court will set a TSC for October 19, 2026, at 8:30 am. Pending the TSC, the parties should meet and confer as to when they believe the case will be ready for trial and their availability.

The court gives no assurances as to when the case will be restored to the trial calendar, however. The court cannot just move the trial 90 days or so; the court does not have room on the trial docket for that. Based on the parties' agreement, the discovery cut off dates are to be tied to the new trial date (when set), not the original trial date. The court notes that the parties have agreed on the contours of the second day of deposition. The court expects the parties to abide by their agreement. | Home