Gwartz v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 16 April 1999 |
Docket Number | No. G025005,G025005 |
Citation | 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 865,71 Cal.App.4th 480 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3615 Brian GWARTZ et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of California, County of Orange Respondent; Leon Richman et al., Real Parties in Interest. |
O P I N I O N
Sometime ago, a handful of judges on the local superior court bench began deciding summary judgment motions without according the parties the benefit of oral argument. The decision to rule from behind closed doors apparently was based on some loose dicta in Sweat v. Hollister (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 603, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 399 (disapproved on another point in Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 609, fn. 5, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 830, 951 P.2d 399) to the effect that law and motion courts may decide motions without hearing oral argument.
In Mediterranean Construction Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 257, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 781, this court took a long, hard look at the language of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, and came to the inescapable conclusion that, as now drafted, it requires oral argument on summary judgment motions. This court held that while trial judges "retain extensive discretion regarding how the hearing is to be conducted, including imposing time limits and adopting tentative ruling procedures," they may not refuse to hear oral argument. (Id. at p. 265, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 781.)
We thought--incorrectly, as it turned out--that the trial courts would simply follow our opinion even if they disagreed with it. Stare decisis and all that stuff. (See Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937 []; cf. Cal.Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3B.) But sometimes it seems as though we have to remind the lower court there is a judicial pecking order when it comes to the interpretation of statutes. 1
Here, defendants filed a motion for summary adjudication of issues in a civil action concerning a boundary line dispute. The trial court did not hear oral argument but simply denied the motion. It may well be after hearing oral argument that the trial court will again deny it. But the possible correctness of the court's ruling is not a proper basis on which to ignore the fact that the court was required by section 437c to hear oral argument and it did not. (Mediterranean Construction Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 265, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Victor v. Hedges
...say"; "[b]oth written and oral argument are complementary parts of good judging and elemental due process"]; Gwartz v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal. App.4th 480, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 865 [same]. Contra, Sweat v. Hollister (1995) 37 Cal. App.4th 603, 613-614, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 399, disapproved on oth......
-
Titmas v. Superior Court
...[criticizing pretrial orders which "issue like a `bolt from the blue out of the trial judge's chambers'"]; Gwartz v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 480, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 865.) To this effect, courts have required an opportunity for oral argument in critical pretrial matters as to which ......
-
Adir Int'l, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...['"[c]ourts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept the law declared by courts of superior jurisdiction"']; Gwartz v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 480, 481-482 ["sometimes it seems as though we have to remind the lower court there is a judicial pecking order when it comes to th......
-
Tjx Companies, Inc. v. Superior Court
...have applied a Lewis-like analysis to require oral arguments in the following situations: summary judgments (Gwartz v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 480, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 865; Mediterranean Construction Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 257, 77 Cal. Rptr.2d 78......
-
The California Court Of Appeal Says Nice Try To Attempt To Overturn The California Supreme Court's Henkel Decision Based On An 1872 Statute
...inclination to reverse Henkel." (See Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 (1962); Gwartz v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.App.4th 480, 481 (1999) ["Stare decisis and all that stuff"].) (Slip Opn. p. Second, it noted that Insurance Code Section 520 is one of the more obscur......