Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV00158, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 22PSCV00158    Hearing Date: August 18, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff XIAOLIN WANG’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES is DENIED.

Background

Plaintiff Xiaolin Wang alleges the following against Defendant Shaobin Wang: Plaintiff and Defendant are siblings. At the request of Defendant, Plaintiff added her brother to Plaintiff’s checking account. Defendant withdrew $17,000 from Plaintiff’s checking account. Additionally, Defendant has failed to make other payments to Plaintiff (for a car loan, rent, and car repair). In total, Defendant owes Plaintiff $31,093.00.

On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant action for:

On March 8, 2022, Defendant filed his answer.

On November 3, 2022, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant summary judgment motion.

Discussion

The motion for summary judgment as to all four causes of action is denied because of numerous defects. First, the memorandum of points and authorities does not set out the law for any of the causes of action. In fact, the motion is nothing more than a recitation of the legal standard for a summary judgment motion. Second, even assuming the motion laid out the causes of action Plaintiff seeks judgment as to, the motion does not cite to evidence. Third, even assuming the motion did cite to evidence, the separate statement (which is where evidence is to be provided), is merely a recitation of the allegations signed by Plaintiff’s attorney. (See generally California Rules of Court Rule 31.350, ‘Motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication.’)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the MSJ is denied.