Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 24STCV11881, Date: 2025-05-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV11881 Hearing Date: May 8, 2025 Dept: 76
The following
tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at 2:16 PM on May 7, 2025.
Notice of intent
to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1). The Court does not desire oral argument on
the motion addressed herein.
As required by
Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER
PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 by 4:00 p.m. on May 7, 2025.
Notice to Department 76 should be sent by
email to smcdept76@lacourt.org, with opposing parties copied on the email. The high volume of telephone calls to
Department 76 may delay the Court’s receipt of notice, so telephonic notice to
213-830-0776 should be reserved for situations where parties are unable to give
notice by email.
Plaintiff seeks to quiet title to the subject real property as between Defendants, whose common interests originated from decedent parents.
Defendant Jose Luis Navarro filed a Cross-Complaint seeking to quiet title as to the extent of his interest in the real property.
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Jose Luis Navarro moves for summary judgment/summary adjudication as to the Complaint and Cross-Complaint.
TENTATIVE RULING
The motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication is DENIED without prejudice to a renewed motion which: (a) complies with Cal. Rules of Court 3.1350 as to the separate statement and (b) which takes into account this Court’s April 29, 2025 ruling which granted Cross-Defendant Alberto Diaz's motion for summary adjudication as to the Cross Complaint as to the first cause of action and the second cause of action.
ANALYSIS
Motion For Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication
Discussion
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Jose Luis Navarro moves for summary judgment/summary adjudication as to the Complaint and Cross-Complaint.
As Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Alberto Diaz points out, the moving separate statement is deficient, and is set forth herein in full verbatim to illustrate why:
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Jose Luis Navarro (“Jose”) submits this Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of his Motion for Summary Adjudication.
Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence:
1. Each of the documents identified in
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice
Filed in Support of his Motion for
Summary Adjudication is admissible
as an authentic copy of the original.
Evidence: Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice Filed in
Support of his Motion for Summary
Adjudication
2. Each of the documents identified in
Plaintiff’s Table of Exhibits Filed in
Support of his Motion for Summary
Adjudication is admissible as an
authentic copy of the original.
Evidence: Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice Filed in
Support of his Motion for Summary
Adjudication and Plaintiff’s Table of
Exhibits.
3. Each of the Exhibits attached to the
Pleadings in this Action – the
Complaint, Answer to Complaint,
Cross-Complaint and Answer to Cross Complaint is admissible as an
authentic copy of the original.
Evidence: Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice Filed in
Support of his Motion for Summary
Adjudication and Plaintiff’s Table of
Exhibits.
This fails to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1350, which states:
(1) The Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of a motion must separately identify:
(A) Each cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion; and
(B) Each supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute with respect to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion.
(2) The separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion.
(3) The separate statement must be in the two-column format specified in (h). The statement must state in numerical sequence the undisputed material facts in the first column followed by the evidence that establishes those undisputed facts in that same column. Citation to the evidence in support of each material fact must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.
(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(c)(1) – (3).
The preparation of a separate statement in connection with a motion for summary judgment is not an idle exercise in formalistic busywork:
The purpose of the separate statement is explained in the quotation from Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 1996) paragraph 10:94.1, pp. 10–31–10–32 in the majority opinion: “This statement and the opposing separate statement ... are intended to permit the judge to determine quickly whether the motion is supported by sufficient undisputed facts. If the opposing statement disputes an essential fact alleged in support of the motion, the judge merely has to review the evidence cited in support of that fact. This saves the judge from having to review all the evidentiary materials filed in support of and in opposition to the motion.” To ignore this practical device and treat it as a mere technicality serves to deprive the busy trial judge of an efficient tool specifically provided by the code to facilitate consideration of motions for summary judgment.
(Kulesa v. Castleberry (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 103, 118 (Rylaarsdam, J, dissenting).)
Because the separate statement fails to comply with Rule 3.1350, relative to the six issues identified at Page 2:2-7, the motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication is DENIED without prejudice to a renewed motion which: (a) complies with Cal. Rules of Court 3.1350 as to the separate statement and (b) which takes into account this Court’s April 29, 2025 ruling which granted Cross-Defendant Alberto Diaz's motion for summary adjudication as to the Cross Complaint as to the first cause of action and the second cause of action