Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV27487, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 21STCV27487    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings Framing Summary Judgment and Adjudication

Plaintiff Mariah Howard sues Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (the MTA) and Does 1 through 10 pursuant to a January 31, 2022, Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleging claims of (1) Civil Rights (Multiple Counts) (Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sect. 51, 51.5, 51.7, 52, 52.3, 52.45, (2) Negligence and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (4) Preventative Relief [Injunction], (5) Unfair Business Practices, (6) Exemplary/Punitive Damages, and (7) Exemplary Damages.

The claims arise from the following allegations. During a trip on one of the MTA’s buses, an MTA bus driver passively allowed Howard to experience physical assault and actively engaged in other violations of Howard's rights based on Plaintiff being a Black, homosexual person.

On April 25, 2022, the Court struck the SAC’s “claims” for exemplary and punitive damages.

B. Motion Before the Court

On December 29, 2023, the MTA filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication of the remaining claims alleged in the SAC.

On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff Howard filed an opposition.

On March 18, 2024, the MTA filed a reply.

The MTS’s motion is now before the Court.

II. Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication

A. Legal Standard

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact for trial or that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) A party may also seek summary adjudication of select causes of action, affirmative defenses, claims for damages, or issues of duty, which may be made by a standalone motion or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and proceeds in all procedural respects like a motion for summary judgment, but which must completely dispose of the challenged cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for damages, or issue of duty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (f)(1)-(2), (t).) The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make prima facie showing no triable material fact issues. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) This burden on summary judgment or adjudication “is more properly one of persuasion rather than proof, since he must persuade the court that there is no material fact for a reasonable trier of fact to find, and not to prove any such fact to the satisfaction of the court itself as though it were sitting as the trier of fact.” (Id. at p. 850, fn. 11.) If the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a rebuttal prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. (Id. at p. 849.) “[I]n ruling on motions for summary judgment courts are to ‘“liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”’ [Citations].” (Cheal v. El Camino Hospital (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 736, 760.)

B. Analysis

1. Hearing on Defendant the MTA’s Motion: CONTINUED.

Here, on its own motion, the Court determines that the circumstances before it merit a continuance of the hearing on MTA’s motion.

a. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(k)

All references to exhibits or declarations in supporting or opposing papers must reference the number or letter of the exhibit, the specific page, and, if applicable, the paragraph or line number. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(k); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(e)(1) [summary judgment or adjudication motions must contain a memorandum of points and authorities].)

Here, a review of the opposition’s points and authorities filed by Plaintiff Howard fails to show a single cite to an exhibit or undisputed material fact submitted with the opposition. (Opp’n, pp. 1-17.)

“In the face of … omissions, the trial court ha[s] no obligation to undertake its own search of the record ‘backwards and forwards to try and figure out how the law applies to the facts’ of the case.” (Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assocs, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934, citations omitted.) This is because “[r]ule 3.1113 rests on a policy-based allocation of resources, preventing the trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the [relevant] party's theories by freeing it from any obligation to comb the record and the law for factual and legal support that a party has failed to identify or provide.” (Ibid.)

Accordingly, the Court determines that Plaintiff’s opposition is defective and must be updated only for the narrow purpose of inserting citations to evidence referenced in the opposition’s points and authorities.

b. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(g)

If evidence in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or adjudication exceeds 25 pages, the evidence must be separately bound and must include a table of contents. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(g).)

Here, though not dispositive, the Court also notes that the opposition and its supporting papers were filed in a single PDF document despite the fact that the opposition attaches roughly 48 pages of evidence. (Opp’n, Exs. 1-32.)

Any amended opposition must comply with this rule of court by separately filing its evidence and including a table of contents.

Moreover, given that the points and authorities and evidence must be presented separately, the Court notes that it would be best practice here to also file the separate statement as an independent PDF document rather than in a single PDF document in combination with either the memo or the evidence.

c. Failure to Consider the Opposition Will Lead to Prejudice and Draconian Results

In so doing, the Court must weigh the potential prejudice to Defendant with the prejudice to the Plaintiff. The MTA is admittedly prejudiced by a continuance, at least in terms of time. A continuance of this hearing may result in a continuance of the final status conference and trial dates.

Nevertheless, on the other end, if the Court declines to consider Plaintiff’s opposition on the merits based on its defects, a windfall could result in favor of the MTA. Moreover, in such a scenario, time and resources may thereafter need to be expended to determine whether Plaintiff should be relieved from the defects in her opposition. All this would result in further continuances and delays in bringing this action to a resolution on the merits.

Prejudice and a disproportionate result thus also support a continuance of this hearing.

d. Continuance

“California courts retain the ability to manage the litigation before them by means of case-specific orders, provided that those orders are consistent with California law and afford litigants due process.” (In re Harley C. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 494, 501, citing Rutherford v. Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967 (Rutherford); Rutherford, supra, at p. 967 [Trial courts are “entitle[d] to exercise reasonable control over all proceedings connected with pending litigation … in order to ensure the orderly administration of justice”].)

Here, the Court determines that, in order to conserve time and resources for the parties and the Court, and as discussed above, a continuance of this hearing is proper. 

III. Conclusion

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication is CONTINUED.

Plaintiff Mariah Howard’s updated opposition points and authorities shall be filed no later than fourteen calendar days prior to the new hearing date. Plaintiff Mariah Howard MUST only update the points and authorities to insert references to evidence, where applicable. No other changes may be made to the points and authorities. Moreover, Plaintiff Mariah Howard may not update the separate statement and may only update the evidence to create a table of contents for the evidence, to be filed in a PDF document separate from the points and authorities and separate statement.

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority shall file any updated reply no later than five calendar days prior to the hearing. The Court notes that because the reply is not defective, there appears to be no reason for Defendant to update its reply. The purpose of this continuance is to insert evidentiary references into the points and authorities before the Court. However, to the extent that the Defendant seeks to insert evidentiary references in its Reply in response to the evidentiary citations inserted into the Opposition, it may do so.

The Court will discuss the issue of scheduling the continued hearing at oral argument.