Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 22STCV28598, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 22STCV28598, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28598 Hearing Date: January 17, 2025 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 1/17/2025 – 8:30am
Case No. 22STCV28598
Trial Date: 02/18/2025
Case Name: ADELINA ARUTUNIAN and HRATCH MANOUKIAN, individuals v. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, an entity; TERRACE VIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, an entity; CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, an entity; M.L. PLUMBING, an entity; MICHAEL LEVENDOSKY; an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive

TENTATIVE RULING ON MSJ

RELIEF REQUESTED¿
Defendants, Resource Management Company and Terrace View Homeowners Association, move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to CCP § 437c.

In the alternative, Defendants, Resource Management Company and Terrace View Homeowners Association, will move and hereby do move, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 437(c)(f)(l), that the court enter an order adjudicating the following issues in Plaintiffs' Complaint as being without substantial controversy:

Issue No. 1: Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their Cause of Action for General Negligence because there are no facts to support the allegation Moving Parties were negligent.

Issue No. 2: Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their Cause of Action for Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee because there are no facts to support the allegation Moving Parties were negligent in hiring, supervision or retention any employee.

Issue No. 3: Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress because there are no facts to support the allegation Moving Parties were negligent nor that there was any emotional distress.

Preliminary
Moving Party: Defendants, Resource Management Company and Terrace View Homeowners Association

Responding Party: Plaintiffs, Adelina Arutunian and Hratch Manoukian

Moving Papers: Motion; Separate Statement;

Opposing Papers: Opposition; Separate Statement; Evidentiary Objections; Proposed Order

Reply Papers: Reply; Evidentiary Objections;

PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS

Section 437c(a)(2)
“ Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 81 days before the time appointed for hearing. If the notice is served by mail, the required 81-day period of notice shall be increased by 5 days if the place of address is within the State of California, 10 days if the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States, and 20 days if the place of address is outside the United States. If the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 81-day period of notice shall be increased by two court days.”

Here, Defendants’ motion is not timely under the 81-day requirement. However, the Court notes that this motion was filed and served on 10/31/2024, when the prior version of § 437c(a)(2) would have been in effect. The prior version had a notice requirement of 75 days, plus two court days for delivery providing for overnight delivery. Based on the version of § 437c(a)(2) in effect in 2024, when Defendants’ motion was filed, this motion would be timely. However, based on the version of § 437c(a)(2) that went into effect on January 1, 2025, Defendants’ motion would be untimely.

The Court will hear argument. Neither parties address the issue of the timeliness of the motion.

Section 437c(a)(3)
“The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. The filing of the motion shall not extend the time within which a party must otherwise file a responsive pleading.” (CCP § 437c(a)(3).)

Here, trial is set for 2/18/2025, and the hearing on the MSJ is set for 1/17/2025. Neither party addresses whether or not this motion is timely under 437c(a)(3).

LEGAL STANDARD MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) The plaintiff or cross-complainant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists, but instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

“Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The plaintiff or cross-complainant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (CCP §437c(p)(2).)

To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence sufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact on the merits of the defendant’s showing. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 163.)

ANALYSIS

Confusion with Causes of Action
As a preliminary matter, the Complaint’s caption labels the three causes of action in the caption as: (1) General Negligence, (2) “Negligence” Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee, and (3) “Negligence” Infliction of Emotional Distress.

However, the body of the Complaint labels the second cause of action “Negligence” Infliction of Emotional distress, despite the fact that the caption labeled this as the third cause of action.

Likewise, the body of the Complaint makes the third cause of action “Negligence” Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee or Contractor despite the fact that the caption labeled this as the second cause of action.

The moving papers also make a similar error. The moving papers label the issues/causes of action in their notice page according to the caption labels.

However, the separate statement moving papers label the issues/causes of action as labeled in the body of the Complaint and not as labeled in the caption of the Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that on 1/13/2025, Defendant, Marb Construction Management, an entity, was dismissed without prejudice.

The instant complaint is not a model of clarity.

Moving, opposing, reply papers, and separate statements in this matter are somewhat confusing.

Here, it is often unclear what arguments the Defendants are making. Likewise, it is unclear how the evidence cited in the separate statement for each undisputed material fact supports the undisputed material fact that Defendants are arguing the evidence supports.

Additionally, it is unclear what element of each cause of action each undisputed material fact is attacking for each cause of action.

Since moving Defendants have the initial burden to present facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense, and since the Court cannot clearly comprehend Defendants’ arguments, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

“In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. Objections to evidence that are not ruled on for purposes of the motion shall be preserved for appellate review.” (CCP §437c(q).)

Here, the Court is not ruling on objections since Defendants did not meet their initial burden.