Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion Improperly Denied
If Statutory Requirements Are Met, Justices Say, Noncompliance With Local Rule Must Be Disregarded
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A superior court may not, based on a local rule, decline to hear a summary judgment motion that meets statutory criteria, Div. Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held in an opinion which the California Supreme Court yesterday ordered to be published.
Acting Presiding Justice Douglas P. Miller authored the opinion, filed May 2. It grants a petition for a writ of mandate ordering the Riverside Superior Court to set a hearing on the motion by the defendants in a case involving a dispute over an easement.
Those parties had made a summary judgment motion that was timely under Code of Civil Procedure §437c— “at least 81 days before the time appointed for hearing” and “no later than 30 days before the date of trial”— but did not comport with the court’s local rule requiring that papers be filed within 10 days after reserving a hearing date. The motion was taken off calendar based on violation of the local rule.
It was then less than 30 days before trial and the defendants asked that the motion be specially set, but Judge Kira L. Klatchko declined to do so, and a writ was sought.
2022 Decision
Among the cases the petitioners cited was Cole v. Superior Court, decided by Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in 2022. Justice Martin N. Buchanan wrote:
“Because petitioners’ motion for summary judgment was filed within the time limits set by section 437c, they have a right to have their motion heard before the start of trial. [The respondent] asserts that petitioners purposefully delayed filing the motion for summary judgment and then delayed asking for ex parte relief so that they could avoid going to trial. But the fact remains that the motion was timely filed, and calendaring issues are not a basis on which the trial court can refuse to hear a timely filed summary judgment motion, absent an indication that it was defective under section 437c.”
Buchanan cited the 1989 Court of Appeal decision by the First District’s Div. Four in Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court. That opinion says:
“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.”
Distinction Drawn
The respondents—Peter Bedford and others—insisted that those cases are inapposite because they dealt with summary judgment motions not being heard based on congested calendars, while the impediment to the present motion in noncompliance with a local rule. Miller responded that given that the local rule “was developed to manage an impacted court calendar, and it has the practical effect of requiring litigants to prepare and file summary judgment motions weeks or months earlier than statutorily required in order to reserve a timely hearing date, we see no basis for distinguishing this case from Cole or Sentry.”
He continued:
“Here, petitioners were not dilatory; they reserved a hearing date over six months ahead of time, which ensured such a date would be available, and they then complied with the statutes by filing their motion 81 days ahead of the hearing. If the trial court vacates the hearing date in this circumstance, it must permit another hearing date that complies with the statute. As such, the court’s denial of petitioners’ motion to specially set the MS J for hearing was not ‘in accordance with the governing rules of law.’…In this regard, the court abused its discretion by refusing to provide petitioners relief either in the form of a short extension of the trial date or a shortening of the time for hearing.”
Request Made
Although a court of appeal, after filing an opinion it does not certify for publication, normally has 30 days within which to certify it, the Fourth District’s Div. Two lost jurisdiction by specifying that “[t]his decision shall be final in this court as of the date of filing.” On May 13, it sent a letter to the state high court saying:
“After the opinion was filed, the panel became aware of facts demonstrating that the issue is one of a continuing public interest that is broader than the counties served by this court, and the opinion clarifies the application of statute.”
Yesterday, the Supreme Court filed an order, setting forth:
“As recommended by the Court of Appeal, the Reporter of Decisions is directed to publish the Court of Appeal opinion in the above-entitled matter in the Official Reports.”
The case is CFP BDA, LLC v. The Superior Court of Riverside County (Bedford), E085583.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company