McMahon

McMahon v. Superior Court

Good Law
106 Cal. App. 4th 112·130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 407·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 188·2003 Daily Journal DAR 1545·2003 WL 257549
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 2003B162625California2,009 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cooper, J.

Absent consent of the parties, does a trial court have authority to shorten the minimum notice period for the hearing of a summary judgment motion? We answer this question in the negative and therefore issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate an order authorizing parties who move for summary judgment in this action to notice the hearing only 21 days in advance.

Factual and Procedural History

Ed McMahon and Pamela McMahon filed this action for negligence, insurance bad faith and other claims against a total of 12 defendants. In July 2002, the McMahons moved for trial preference based on Ed McMahon’s age and health. On October 15, 2002, a hearing took place on the McMahons’ motion, as well as on various demurrers filed by some of the defendants. The trial court took the matters under submission.

On October 21, 2002, the trial court issued an order granting the preference motion and overruling the demurrers. The order set a trial date of April 14, 2003, and established dates and deadlines for various pretrial matters. With respect to summary judgment motions, the order provided as follows: “all motions for summary judgment are to be heard by April 1,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.