On September 27, 2007 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx,
Xxxxx Xxxxxxx,
and
Arun Ravidran,
for civil
in the District Court of Santa Clara County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
MINUTE ORDER
R. xxxxxxx, et al vs A. Ravidran Hearing Start Time: 9:00 AM
Hearing Type: Motion: Summary
2015 1 CV 287890
Judgment/Adjudication
Date of Hearing: 10/04/2018 Comments:
Heard By: Zayner, Theodore C Location: Department 6
Courtroom Reporter: -
No Court Reporter Courtroom Clerk: Maggie Castellon
Court Interpreter:
Court Investigator:
Parties Present: Future Hearings:
Exhibits:
-
No appearance. Tentative ruling adoped as follows:
This isan action primarily for wrongful death. Plaintiffs Complaint states five causes of action: 1) Wrongful
Death; 2) Negligence Motor Vehicle; 3) Negligence; 4) Loss of Consortium, and; 5) Wrongful Death Survival
Action. Currently before the Court is the motion for summary adjudication directed at the second, third,
fourth and fifth causes of action filed by Defendant Arun Ravidran ( Defendant ). The motion was filed on
August 3, 2018 with a scheduled hearing date of October 4, 2018 and served on Plaintiffs by regular mail.
Defendant s Motion isDENIED in itsentirety. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure ( CCP ) 437c(a)(2), service
of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication requires 75-days notice plus five additional days for
service by regular mail to an address within California. The notice period is calculated by counting backward
from the hearing date, excluding the day of the hearing. (CCP 12c.) The last date on which a motion for
summary adjudication set for hearing on October 4, 2018 could have been filed and served by regular mail
while still complying with CCP 437c(a)(2) s mandatory notice requirement was July 16, 2018, 80 days before
October 4 (and excluding October 4 itself). Defendant s motion was filed with only 62 days notice.
The Court has no power to shorten the mandatory notice period without the parties prior consent nor may it
cure the defect by continuing the hearing. (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal App 4th 1258, 1267-1268; See
also Urshan v. Musicians Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 768 [ [W]aiver of the right to the
statutorily mandated minimum notice period for summaryjudgment hearings should not be inferred from
silence. Waiver of minimum notice in thiscontext should only be based on the affirmative assent of the
affected parties. ]) CCP 437c(a)(3) further provides that a motion for summary judgment/adjudication shall
be heard no later than 30 clays before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. An
order from the Court finding such good cause for setting the motion less than 30 days before trial must be
sought and issued before the motion is filed. (Robinson, supra, at p. 1268.) The 30-day cut-off under CCP
437c(a)(3) is measured from the trial date in effect when the motion is made. When Defendant filed this
motion on August 3, 2018 the October 22, 2018 trial date (which had been set at the June 12, 2018
conference Defense Counsel attended) was still in effect and the motion was set for hearing only 17 days
Printed:10/4/2018 Summary JudgmentlAdjudication
10/04/2018 Motion: -2015-1-CV- Page 1 of2
287890
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
MINUTE ORDER
before trialwithout any prior approval from the Court. The August 27, 2018 order vacating the October 22,
2018 trialdate renders this failure to comply with CCP 437c(a)(3) moot but it does not cure the inadequate
notice problem.
As Defendant s motion is denied in its entirety due to his failure to comply with the mandatory notice
requirement it is not necessary for the Court to determine whether to exercise its discretion to consider
Plaintiffs Opposition, which was filed six days late without leave of Court. A trial court has broad discretion
to under rule 3.1300(d) of the California Rules of Court to refuse to consider papers served and filed beyond
the deadline without a prior court order finding good cause for late submission. (Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc.
(2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [Court s emphasis].) CCP 437c(b)(2) forbids the filing of any opposition
papers less than 14 days prior to the scheduled hearing, and case law has been strict in requiring good cause
to be shown before late filed [opposition] papers will be accepted in a summary judgment proceeding.
(Hobson v. Raychem Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 614, 625, disapproved on another point in Colmenares v.
Braemar Country Club, Inc. (2003) 29 Ca|.4th 1019, 1031, fn. 6.)
Both counsel would be well-served ifthey refresh their familiarity with the procedural requirements of CCP
437c.
-
00000
Printed:10/4/2018 Summary Judgment/Adjudication
10/04/201 8 Motion: -201 5-1-CV- Page 2 of2
287890
Document Filed Date
October 04, 2018
Case Filing Date
September 27, 2007
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER R. xxxxxxx, et al vs A. Ravidran Hearing Start Time: 9:00 AM Hearing Type: Motion: Summary 2015 1 CV 287890 Judgment/Adjudication Date of Hearing: 10/04/2018 Comments: Heard By: Zayner, Theodore C Location: Department 6 Courtroom Reporter: - No Court Reporter Courtroom Clerk: Maggie Castellon Court Interpreter: Court Investigator: Parties Present: Future Hearings: Exhibits: - No appearance. Tentative ruling adoped as follows: This isan action primarily for wrongful death. Plaintiffs Complaint states five causes of action: 1) Wrongful Death; 2) Negligence Motor Vehicle; 3) Negligence; 4) Loss of Consortium, and; 5) Wrongful Death Survival Action. Currently before the Court is the motion for summary adjudication directed at the second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action filed by Defendant Arun Ravidran ( Defendant ). The motion was filed on August 3, 2018 with a scheduled hearing date of October 4, 2018 and served on Plaintiffs by regular mail. Defendant s Motion isDENIED in itsentirety. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure ( CCP ) 437c(a)(2), service of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication requires 75-days notice plus five additional days for service by regular mail to an address within California. The notice period is calculated by counting backward from the hearing date, excluding the day of the hearing. (CCP 12c.) The last date on which a motion for summary adjudication set for hearing on October 4, 2018 could have been filed and served by regular mail while still complying with CCP 437c(a)(2) s mandatory notice requirement was July 16, 2018, 80 days before October 4 (and excluding October 4 itself). Defendant s motion was filed with only 62 days notice. The Court has no power to shorten the mandatory notice period without the parties prior consent nor may it cure the defect by continuing the hearing. (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal App 4th 1258, 1267-1268; See also Urshan v. Musicians Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 768 [ [W]aiver of the right to the statutorily mandated minimum notice period for summaryjudgment hearings should not be inferred from silence. Waiver of minimum notice in thiscontext should only be based on the affirmative assent of the affected parties. ]) CCP 437c(a)(3) further provides that a motion for summary judgment/adjudication shall be heard no later than 30 clays before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. An order from the Court finding such good cause for setting the motion less than 30 days before trial must be sought and issued before the motion is filed. (Robinson, supra, at p. 1268.) The 30-day cut-off under CCP 437c(a)(3) is measured from the trial date in effect when the motion is made. When Defendant filed this motion on August 3, 2018 the October 22, 2018 trial date (which had been set at the June 12, 2018 conference Defense Counsel attended) was still in effect and the motion was set for hearing only 17 days Printed:10/4/2018 Summary JudgmentlAdjudication 10/04/2018 Motion: -2015-1-CV- Page 1 of2 287890 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER before trialwithout any prior approval from the Court. The August 27, 2018 order vacating the October 22, 2018 trialdate renders this failure to comply with CCP 437c(a)(3) moot but it does not cure the inadequate notice problem. As Defendant s motion is denied in its entirety due to his failure to comply with the mandatory notice requirement it is not necessary for the Court to determine whether to exercise its discretion to consider Plaintiffs Opposition, which was filed six days late without leave of Court. A trial court has broad discretion to under rule 3.1300(d) of the California Rules of Court to refuse to consider papers served and filed beyond the deadline without a prior court order finding good cause for late submission. (Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [Court s emphasis].) CCP 437c(b)(2) forbids the filing of any opposition papers less than 14 days prior to the scheduled hearing, and case law has been strict in requiring good cause to be shown before late filed [opposition] papers will be accepted in a summary judgment proceeding. (Hobson v. Raychem Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 614, 625, disapproved on another point in Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. (2003) 29 Ca|.4th 1019, 1031, fn. 6.) Both counsel would be well-served ifthey refresh their familiarity with the procedural requirements of CCP 437c. - 00000 Printed:10/4/2018 Summary Judgment/Adjudication 10/04/201 8 Motion: -201 5-1-CV- Page 2 of2 287890