Cole v. Superior Court (2022) D081299 D081299; filed 12/30/22. ![[Files/CaseFiles/D081299.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/D081299.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Timely summary judgment motions and court calendaring; quoting Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529-530. > Numerous courts of appeal have held that a trial court cannot refuse to consider a motion for summary judgment that is timely filed. “A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment filed within the time limits of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 437c. [Citation.] Local rules and practices may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529 (Sentry); accord, First State Inc. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 324, 330 [invalidating case management order to the extent it precluded filing motions pursuant to section 437c]; Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 923 [local court rule that “require a party filing a complex summary judgment motion to file the motion six months before the date set for trial is void and unenforceable because it is inconsistent with section 437c”].) As the Sentry court explained: “We are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions.” (Sentry, supra, at p. 530.) — Cole v. Superior Court (2022) D081299, slip op., p. 5.