Judge Audra Mori, Case 20STCV29616 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV29616, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29616 Hearing Date: October 21, 2022 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

BEATRIZ AMARO,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

Case No.: 20STCV29616

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

October 21, 2022

Plaintiff Beatriz Amaro (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages relating to Plaintiff’s trip and fall on a lifted portion of a sidewalk. On December 30, 2020 Plaintiff filed her operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for negligence and premises liability against Defendants.

On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff attempted to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). However, Plaintiff did not obtain leave to file the SAC nor file a stipulation permitting Plaintiff to file the SAC, so the SAC was rejected. A Notice of Rejection of Electronic Filing was entered in the docket on February 25, 2021.

Defendants now move for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s SAC. However, as stated above, the operative pleading in this matter is the FAC. The pleadings serve as the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment motion and serve to frame the scope of the issues that must be addressed. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-82; see also Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1253 [“The pleadings delimit the issues to be considered on a motion for summary judgment…”].) Defendants are thus moving for summary judgment as to the wrong, and an inoperative, complaint. They make this clear, for example, in the Notice of Motion[1] and the Separate Statement that cites to the SAC. Because Plaintiff improperly attempted to file the SAC, and it was rejected, the FAC remains the operative pleading in this action. The Court cannot grant Defendants’ motion that is directed at the incorrect pleading.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied. The denial is without prejudice to Defendants moving for summary judgment as to the operative complaint in this action.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 21^st day of October 2022

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Notice provides, “This Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 437(c) on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact and Plaintiff cannot prevail on the causes of actions alleged in the Second Amended Complaint as a matter of fact and/or law.”