Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV04930, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling

 



 




Case Number: 21STCV04930    Hearing Date: May 1, 2025    Dept: 74

Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Paragon Relocation Resources, Inc. et al.  

Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.’s Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication

 

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a breach of contract action.

Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendants Paragon Relocation Resources, Inc. (Paragon Relocation) and Paragon Global Resources, Inc. (Paragon Global) alleging three causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Conversion and (3) Unjust Enrichment. 

On April 29, 2024, the Court continued the trial from August 26, 2024 to February 24, 2025, but did not continue any motion or discovery cutoff dates.

On June 13, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication to all except Paragon Global’s seventh affirmative defense.  In particular, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s causes of action for conversion and unjust enrichment.   

 

LEGAL STANDARD

            A party may file a renewed motion for summary adjudication based on newly discovered fact or circumstances or change in law.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f)(2).) 

 

DISCUSSION

Motion’s Untimeliness

            On April 29, 2024, the Court continued trial from August 26, 2024, to February 24, 2025, but did not continue any motion or discovery cutoff dates.  On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication.  Plaintiff had not sought leave of court to file a late motion.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(3).)  The Court has broad discretion to refuse to consider papers filed beyond the deadline without a prior court order.  (Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765.)  Plaintiff has not made a showing of good cause for its late filed motion, nor does Plaintiff acknowledge that its untimely motion was filed beyond the motion cutoff.  The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for that reason alone.

Renewal of Motion for Summary Adjudication

            As a separate and independent reason to deny the motion, the Court notes that while typically a party may bring only one motion for summary judgment, the party may file more than one motion for summary adjudication.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 437c(a)(4).) Although Plaintiff may file multiple motions for summary adjudication, the current motion amounts to a request for reconsideration of a previous motion for summary judgment or adjudication.  Without establishing newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law, a party may not seek summary adjudication of issues from a prior motion for summary judgment or adjudication which was denied by the court.  (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1098.) 

            Plaintiff provides that the Deposition of Joseph Morabito (Morabito), President and Chief Executive Officer of Paragon Global, was not available at the time of the previous Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication.  (Lewis Decl., ¶ 6.)  New facts must not have been discoverable at the time of the prior motion.  (Forrest v. Dept. Of Corps. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 202.)  Plaintiff filed its initial motion for summary judgment or adjudication on November 7, 2023.  (Lewis Decl., ¶ 4.)  At the time of filing, Plaintiff knew that it needed to depose Morabito as the PMQ for Paragon Global.  (Lewis Decl., ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff and Paragon Global participated in an Informal Discovery Conference on April 29, 2024.  (Lewis Decl., ¶ 6.)  At the time of the IDC, Plaintiff neither sought to extend motion or discovery cutoffs, nor leave to file a late or amended motion for summary judgment or adjudication.  (See Minute Order April 29, 2024.) 

            Plaintiff submits that the new evidence from the Morabito establishes that Paragon Global is independently liable for payments.  The deposition was taken before the opposition was filed in the initial motion for summary judgment or adjudication.  (Lewis Decl., ¶ 8.)  Depositions conducted on the eve of a summary judgment hearing do not constitute new facts.  (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 213.)  Plaintiff argues that it was Paragon Global’s discovery practices which led to the delayed deposition.  (Lewis Decl., ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff does not provide the date when it first sought to depose Morabito.  Plaintiff states that Defendants stated that Morabito was out of the country and unavailable for the noticed deposition dates, but that upon holding an IDC, Plaintiff was able to promptly depose Morabito.  (Lewis Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) 

            Based on the evidence provided, the Court does not find that Morabito’s Declaration, and any evidence within it, was unavailable to Plaintiff at the time of filing its original Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication.  Therefore, Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication does not satisfy the requirements for a renewed motion. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s motion for that reason, too.   

             

CONCLUSION

The Court denies Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication.            

Plaintiff to give notice.




Website by Triangulus