In CFP BDA, LLC v. Superior Court (2025), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (Riverside), issued a published opinion that clarifies a recurring procedural dilemma in civil litigation: whether trial courts may deny a timely motion for summary judgment based solely on local calendaring rules. The Court held they may not.
The case arose from a property dispute involving a local airport and neighboring landowners seeking to impose an easement. Petitioners (the airport owners) timely reserved a hearing date for their summary judgment motion and served the motion more than 30 days before trial, in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. However, because they filed their moving papers more than 10 court days after reserving the hearing—contrary to Riverside County Local Rule 3310—the court clerk removed the hearing from calendar. When petitioners moved to have the summary judgment motion specially set or the trial date adjusted, the trial court denied relief without a hearing.
The Court of Appeal reversed, issuing a peremptory writ of mandate. Citing Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, and Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, the Court reaffirmed that trial courts must hear timely summary judgment motions. “A trial court cannot refuse to consider a motion for summary judgment that is timely filed,” the Court emphasized, adding that local rules “may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion.” The Court acknowledged the challenges posed by congested trial calendars but made clear that local administrative rules cannot override statutory rights. It found the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to set the motion for hearing or to grant reasonable relief, such as continuing trial or shortening time.
This decision serves as a procedural reminder for litigants: while local rules are essential for managing crowded dockets, they cannot preclude consideration of motions filed in compliance with state law. Counsel should be proactive in reserving hearing dates early, but if a statutory deadline is met, the motion must be heard on its merits.
This decision also highlights the value of writ relief in civil litigation. While writ petitions are granted sparingly, they remain a critical procedural tool when traditional appellate remedies are inadequate—especially in cases involving the denial of statutory rights, like the right to a hearing on a timely summary judgment motion. Counsel should not hesitate to pursue writ review when a trial court’s procedural ruling threatens to deprive their client of a fair opportunity to be heard.
This document is intended to provide you with information about trending law related developments and news. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact the authors. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.