Sentry Insurance v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jan 26, 1989 No. A044603Published

Before: Channell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A trial court may not refuse to hear a timely filed motion for summary judgment, and local rules or practices cannot be used to prevent such a hearing.

Issues

Whether a trial court may refuse to hear a timely motion for summary judgment due to calendar constraints.
Whether Code of Civil Procedure section 437c requires summary judgment motions to be filed relative to the initial trial date.
Whether the petition for extraordinary relief was barred by laches.

Disposition. Writ of mandate issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.”

“Local rules and practices may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion.”

“We are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions.”

Opinion

CHANNELL, J.

Respondent court has refused to hear petitioner’s timely motion for summary judgment. We issue our writ directing respondent court to continue the trial date and to hear the motion.

Section 437c, subdivision (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “Any party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense thereto. The motion may be made at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at such earlier time after the general appearance as the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct. Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 28 days before the time appointed for hearing. . . . The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. . . .”

The date set for trial of the instant case was January 17, 1989. Thus, the above time limits required that a motion for summary judgment be heard no later than December 16, 1988, and notice of that date be served by November 18, 1988. In their verified petition, petitioners’ attorney states that on November 1, 1988, petitioners attempted to file a motion for summary judgment. Petitioners were advised that the first date the motion could be heard was December 22, 1988, and that a court order would be necessary to have the motion calendared sooner. On or about November 3, 1988, petitioners sought an order shortening time which was denied. Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied.

Petitioners state in the verified petition that the presiding judge of respondent court suggested that petitioners move to continue the trial date in

[529]

order to have their summary judgment heard. On December 8, 1988, the motion to continue the trial date was denied.

A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.

Sentry Insurance v. Superior Court

AI Brief

CHANNELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief