## Facts

- Plaintiffs filed a quiet title action against defendants concerning real property.
- Trial was set for April 30, 2007.
- Defendants served a motion for summary judgment by mail on January 26, 2007, noticing the hearing for April 12, 2007.
- The noticed hearing date was 76 days after mailing and 18 days before trial.
- Plaintiffs opposed only on procedural grounds, asserting that Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a) required (1) at least 80 days’ notice when served by mail within California, and (2) a hearing at least 30 days before trial absent a prior good-cause order; plaintiffs did not address the merits.
- On April 12, the trial court agreed the motion was not properly noticed and was set within 30 days of trial without prior good-cause approval.
- Instead of denying or striking the motion, the court continued the hearing four days to April 16, ordered defendants to submit papers showing good cause to hear the motion within 30 days of trial, and permitted plaintiffs to file merits opposition papers.
- Plaintiffs objected to proceeding on shortened time and moved to dismiss the motion as untimely; the trial court denied the request.
- On April 16, the court found good cause to hear the motion within 30 days of trial and immediately ruled on the motion, granting summary judgment after noting plaintiffs had not filed a merits opposition.
- Plaintiffs appealed from the ensuing judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may cure defective notice under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a) by continuing a summary-judgment hearing for only four days rather than providing the full statutory minimum notice period.
2. Whether a good-cause finding to hear a summary-judgment motion within 30 days of trial permits the court to proceed to immediate adjudication despite inadequate statutory notice.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment.
- The trial court abused its discretion by continuing the hearing only four days rather than ensuring compliance with the statutory minimum notice period.
- The trial court also erred by ruling on the motion immediately after making a good-cause finding on the within-30-days-of-trial requirement.
- Plaintiffs’ failure to file a merits opposition did not waive the notice defect where plaintiffs timely objected to the shortened schedule and sought dismissal on timeliness grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(a), summary-judgment notice requirements are mandatory: the motion must be served at least 75 days before the hearing, plus additional time when service is by mail.
- A court’s authority to find “good cause” to hear the motion within 30 days of trial addresses only the proximity-to-trial limitation; it does not authorize truncating the statutory minimum notice period.
- A notice defect is not cured by a brief continuance that still does not provide the required statutory notice.
- A party does not forfeit an objection to inadequate notice by declining to file a merits opposition when the party timely objects to proceeding on unlawfully shortened notice.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed because the trial court proceeded on a summary-judgment motion that did not satisfy § 437c(a)’s mandatory notice requirements, and neither a four-day continuance nor a good-cause finding to hear the motion close to trial could validate adjudication without the full statutory notice period.


Robinson v. Woods, 168 Cal. App. 4th 1258, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 241 (Ct. App. 2008)