N/A

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. I) September 10, 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.

This is an application to advance the hearing date on an MSJ or continue the trial to allow the MSJ to be heard. The MSJ was filed on the very last possible day for a timely motion assuming personal service. Service was accomplished at 5:11 pm by leaving the papers in a "conspicuous" place at counsel's office. On statutory notice, that would lead to a hearing on October 30, 2026, assuming service is proper. The trial is 11/30/26, which means that Friday, October 30, 2026, is the last possible timely hearing date. The currently scheduled date is November 10, 2026--seven court days beyond minimum notice.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1011 states that personal service on a party shall be made by "leaving the notice or other paper at the party's residence with some person 18 years of age or older." Plaintiff here is self-represented. The signed proof of service simply says that the documents were handed to a messenger. The declaration from the messenger is blank. However, a later proof of service was filed that was signed by the messenger. The fact that this document was filed after the moving papers is of no moment; the proof of service may be filed after the moving papers (and indeed, in most cases must be so filed).

It states that the messenger attempted to serve plaintiff at 5:00 p.m. but the gate was closed. The messenger could hear activity inside and saw shadows, but no one came in or out or to the gate. The messenger waited for a few minutes and placed the documents in the mail box at 5:11 p.m. The declaration states that a photo is attached, but there is no photo. The court will take the messenger's declaration as true.

The question is whether leaving the documents in the mailbox counts as personal service under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court is not sure that it does. That is the problem with waiting until literally the last hour to file and serve the papers. That was a risky game to play, and it might well be that the gamble did not pay off here. The court will hear a brief argument as to why defendant decided to wait until the last second and then file a motion that was apparently not timely served such that it could be heard within the statutory time frame.

Case Number: 23SMCV06010 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: I The motion is MOOT. There will be no hearing today.

Case Number: 24SMCV01384 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: I The court is not convinced that an adequate showing has yet been made. Plaintiff's principal argument is that it needs the PMK deposition. Plaintiff states that it served a notice for a PMK deposition on July 31, 2026 (along with a request for documents) with the deposition to be held on August 16, 2026--two months and a half months before the trial. Plaintiff stated in the notice that if the date was not good for the defense, the defense should suggest alternative dates. On August 10, 2026, defendants objected on the ground that the date was unilaterally chosen, apparently without committing to another date. Plaintiff states that there is not enough time to get this discovery done, and it claims that the discovery is necessary.

The court's problem is this: the court has no showing of diligence. The court does not know why it is that plaintiff waited until July 31, 2026, to serve the PMK notice and seek documents from the defense. That was about 5 months before trial and 4 months before the FSC and about two and a half years after the complaint was filed. The court does not know what efforts plaintiff had made prior to serving the PMK notice to obtain a mutually agreeable date. For example, plaintiff might have been trying to get a date from the defendant for half a year without any success before serving the deposition notice. That would be a point in plaintiff's favor. Or plaintiff might have not tried at all, which makes it appear that plaintiff simply sat on its hands. Without that kind of information, there is no showing of diligence, and therefore no cause for a continuance.

As to the death of the former counsel, that was at the end of May. The original stipulation was not made for over three months. That, too, is a lack of diligence. Had the request been made in June, the court might have felt differently. The court recognizes that the parties have stipulated to this. The court is not trying to be difficult, but the court simply cannot accommodate this. The trial date was set on February 4, 2025--a year and a half ago. At that time, the court verbally warned the parties that there would be no continuances absent truly unforeseen and unforeseeable circumstances, and the need to complete discovery would not be sufficient. This warning is reflected in the minute order of that date, stating that no continuances would be granted "absent extraordinary good cause."

The reason for this is that the court has over 1300 cases on the docket. Because this is an I/C court, the court needs about 3 weeks to try a case on average. If one does the math, and accounting for days on which the court is dark, that means it will take 100 years to try the current case load. Of course, we all know that most cases resolve without a trial or continuance. But even assuming that 95% of cases so resolve, it will take the court 5 years to try the current docket. As the court warned the parties back at the CMC, the court simply has nowhere to put this case. Accordingly, the application is DENIED. The court will inquire as to how the mediation (ordered at the CMC with the parties' agreement) went.

Case Number: 25SMCV04336 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: I This is a motion to dismiss the