Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV00827, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00827    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: 74

Young v. Lee et al.  

Defendant Wilshire Fremont Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from an abuse of process and negligence cause of action. 

Plaintiff Danny Young (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Hyo Min Lee; Yun Jeong Sim; Wilshire Fremont Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc.; and Michelle Behm.  Plaintiff alleged four causes of action: (1) Abuse of Process, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (3) Violation of Statute, and (4) Negligence.  Plaintiff dismissed the third cause of action.  Only the fourth cause of action names defendant Wilshire Fremont Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc. (HOA or Defendant). 

Defendant moves for summary judgment.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections

Declaration of Michelle M. Mccliman

·         Overruled: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

HOA Appendix

·         Overruled: 9, 10, 11, 12

LEGAL STANDARD

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.)  The California 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.)  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 has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.

To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence.  (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant moves for summary judgment on the fourth cause of action for negligence, the only cause of action directed at Defendant.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s opposition was late served based on the January 1, 2025 changes to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.  Given that the Motion for Summary Judgment was filed and served in 2024, the Court applies the statutory dates from the filing of the motion.  Therefore, Plaintiff’s Opposition was due on March 27, 2025.  

            The elements of Negligence are (1) legal duty owed to plaintiffs to use due care, (2) breach of duty, (3) causation, and (4) damage to Plaintiff.  (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)  Defendant alleges that the (1) it owed no duty of disclosure to Plaintiff, (2) the cause of action is time barred, (3) the litigation privilege bar’s Plaintiff’s claim, and (4) Plaintiff’s damages are too speculative.  The court focuses on the statute-of-limitations argument.

            The central undisputed facts are that (1) Plaintiff served on the Board of the HOA; (2) while Plaintiff was serving on the Board, the Board was accused of inappropriate spending; (3) in April 2019, defendant Sim filed a derivative action against Plaintiff on behalf of the HOA; (4) Sim received a substantial settlement in 2022 and the HOA did not disclose this to its residents; and, (5) the HOA did not inform the residents about the results of several other lawsuits regarding the allegations of inappropriate spending.  (UMF Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9; PSSUMF Nos. 38, 41, 42.)  HOA disputes the characterization of Sim’s not disclosing the results of the suits.

Statute of Limitations

            Defendant contends that the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim is time-barred because the injury was the defamatory statements made in the 2019 Sim Lawsuit.  The statute of limitations for a negligence cause of action is two years.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 335.1.)  Plaintiff does not dispute that the original injury occurred in 2019 when the Sim lawsuit was filed, but instead argues that under the continuing violation doctrine, the statute of limitations runs from the later conduct.  The continuing violation doctrine applies when the actions (1) are sufficiently similar in kind, (2) occur with reasonable frequency, and (3) have not acquired a degree of permanence.  (Birschtein v. New United Motor Mfg., Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 994, 1004.)  Plaintiff’s emotional distress claim revolves around allegations that while Plaintiff served on the HOA Board, the Board embezzled funds.  Plaintiff claims that his severe emotional distress began when Sim filed the embezzlement lawsuit (Sim lawsuit) in 2019, and continued (1) in December 2020, when Christine Lee’s HOA Board repeated the lawsuit’s embezzlement allegations, (2) after the filing of amended complaints in 2021, (3) in February 2022, when the HOA did not inform residents of the settlement, and (4) in May 2022, when Plaintiff learned that the action against him had been dismissed.  (PSSMF Nos. 18, 28, 29, 31, 34-37, 38, 41, 43.)  These actions, taking place over five years, are not sufficiently related to the original injury to support the continuing-violation doctrine.  Thus, the statute of limitations bars Plaintiff’s cause of action.   

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

            Defendant to give notice.