Judge Cynthia A Freeland, Case Number: 37-2023-00020497-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2023-00020497-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 25, 2024

04/26/2024 01:30:00 PM N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2023-00020497-CU-BC-NC UHLMEYER VS. BAKER SATISFACTION, INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 12/11/2023

Defendant Baker Satisfaction, Inc. ('Defendant')'s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Initial Considerations Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice Defendant's request for judicial notice ('RJN') is granted with respect to the following documents: (1) the Complaint filed in San Diego Superior Court – North County, Case No. 37-2019-00056965-CU-BC-NC entitled David Uhlmeyer and Leandra Uhlmeyer v. Subaru of America (Exhibit 1 to the RJN) (the 'First Lawsuit'); (2) the Case Management Conference Statement filed by Plaintiffs David and Leandra Uhlmeyer (collectively, 'Plaintiffs') in Case No. 2019-00056965-CU-BC-NC (Exhibit 2 to the RJN); (3) the July 29, 2022 Minute Order in Case No. 2019-00056965-CU-BC-NC (Exhibit 3 to the RJN); (4) the Complaint filed in San Diego Superior Court – North County, Case No. 37-2023-00020497-CU-BC-NC entitled David Uhlmeyer and Leandra Uhlmeyer v. Baker Satisfaction, Inc. (Exhibit 4 to the RJN) (the 'Second Lawsuit'); and (5) the November 3, 2023 Minute Order in Case No. 2019-00056965-CU-BC-NC (Exhibit 5 to the RJN). The court takes judicial notice of the existence of these records; however, it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the matters asserted in Exhibits 1, 2, or 4 to the RJN. See Board of Pilot Commissioners for the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo and Suisun v. Superior Court (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 577, 597.

The Parties' Respective Evidentiary Objections California Rules of Court ('CRC'), Rule 3.1354 prescribes the format for evidentiary objections. More specifically, CRC, Rule 3.1354(b) provides that: All written objections to evidence must be served and filed separately from the other papers in support of or in opposition to the motion. Objections to specific evidence must be referenced by the objection number in the right column of a separate statement in opposition or reply to a motion, but the objections must not be restated or reargued in the separate statement. Each written objection must be numbered consecutively and must: (1) Identify the name of the document in which the specific material objected to is located; (2) State the exhibit, title, page, and line number of the material objected to; Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3063357 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: UHLMEYER VS. BAKER SATISFACTION, INC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00020497-CU-BC-NC (3) Quote or set forth the objectionable statement or material; and (4) State the grounds for each objection to that statement or material.

Cal. R. Ct. 3.1354(b). With regard to Plaintiffs' evidentiary objections, while they comport with the prescriptions of CRC, Rule 3.1354, they must be overruled. More specifically, Plaintiffs' Objections to Thomas Feerick's Declaration Nos. 1 and 2 are overruled in accord with California Evidence Code § 1414. Plaintiffs' Objections to Thomas Feerick's Supplemental Declaration No. 1 is overruled as the excerpt from Mr. Uhlmeyer's Deposition in the First Lawsuit has been authenticated by submission of the court reporter's certification page. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 273(a); Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 486, 523.

Defendant's Objection Nos. 1 and 3 do not comport with CRC, Rule 3.1354 as they do not identify the page or line of the material to which it objects. As a result, the court overrules these objections. That being said, as discussed further herein, the material to which Defendant objects has no bearing on the outcome of the pending motion. Defendant's Objection No. 2 is sustained.

The Parties' Respective Separate Statements Having addressed Defendant's RJN and the parties' respective evidentiary objections, the court must take issue with the procedural deficiencies plaguing the parties' respective submissions in support of and in opposition to the pending motion. A motion for summary judgment or adjudication must be accompanied by a separate statement of undisputed material facts ('UMF'). See Cal. R. Ct.

3.1350(c)(2); Cal. Code Civ. P. § 437c(b)(1). A separate statement in support of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication 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.' Cal. R. Ct. 3.1350(d)(1). 'The supporting papers shall include a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are disputed. Each of the material facts stated shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court's discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 437c(b)(1).

'The separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion.' Cal. R. Ct. 3.1350(d)(2).

A separate statement must also accompany an opposition to a motion for summary judgment or adjudication. See Cal. R. Ct. 3.1350(e)(2); Cal. Code Civ. P. § 437c(b)(3). The separate statement must 'respond[] to each of the material facts contended by the moving party to be undisputed, indicating if the opposing party agrees or disagrees that those facts are undisputed. The statement also shall set forth plainly and concisely any other material facts the opposing party contends are disputed. Each material fact contended by the opposing party to be disputed shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. Failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court's discretion, for granting the motion.' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 437c(b)(3). The separate statement in opposition to the motion must, in relevant part, 'unequivocally state whether that fact is 'disputed' or 'undisputed.' An opposing party who contends that a fact is disputed must state, on the right side of the page directly opposite the fact in dispute, the nature of the dispute and describe the evidence that supports the position that the fact is controverted. Citation to the evidence in support of the position that a fact is controverted must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.' Cal. R. Ct.

3.1350(f)(2).

As for Defendant's Separate Statement, there are several instances in which the cited evidence does not support the 'fact' to which it is associated. See Defendant's UMF Nos. 10, 12, and 13. As for Plaintiffs' Separate Statement, there are several instances in which Plaintiffs do not unequivocally state whether the fact is 'disputed' or 'undisputed.' See Plaintiffs' UMF Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3063357 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: UHLMEYER VS. BAKER SATISFACTION, INC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00020497-CU-BC-NC While the parties may believe the issues with their respective separate statements elevate form over substance, such a belief would be sorely misguided. As courts have explained: Separate statements are required not to satisfy a sadistic urge to torment lawyers, but rather to afford due process to opposing parties and to permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions for [summary adjudication] and summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are undisputed.' ( United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 335 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 368].) The separate statement 'provides a convenient and expeditious vehicle permitting the trial court to hone in on the truly disputed facts.' ( Collins v. Hertz Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 64, 74 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 149].) Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 243, 251-252.

Additionally, Plaintiffs' separate statement is not Code-compliant to the extent that Plaintiffs improperly interposed evidentiary objections into the statement without having filed and served those objections independent of the separate statement. Evidentiary objections must be submitted either: (1) in writing under CRC, Rule 3.1354, or (2) at the hearing in the presence of a court reporter. See Cal. R. Ct.

3.1352. CRC, Rule 3.1354(b) makes clear that evidentiary objections 'must be served and filed separately from the other papers in support of or in opposition to the motion.' Cal. R. Ct. 3.1354(b).

While specific evidentiary objections must be referenced in the right column of the separate statement, it is insufficient to merely restate or reargue such objections in a separate statement in the absence of separately filed and served written objections. Ibid. In this case, while Plaintiffs did file three separate evidentiary objections, the 'objections' that are contained in Plaintiffs' separate statements include objections that were not set forth in separate evidentiary objections. See Plaintiffs' UMF Nos. 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15. Consequently, the court will not consider the objections contained within Plaintiffs' separate statement that were not otherwise set forth in their separately filed evidentiary objections.

The court will now turn to the motion's merits.

Legal Analysis Motions for summary judgment and adjudication are subject to the same rules and procedures. See Lunardi v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 807, 819; Cal. Code Civ. P. § 437c(f)(2). The court applies a three-step analysis when ruling on a motion for summary judgment or adjudication: (1) identify the causes of action, issue(s) of duty or defense framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the movant has satisfied his or her burden of showing the defense or causes of action have no merit because one or more elements cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause or causes of action, or that a duty exists or does not exist; and (3) if the movant has made a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts and the court determines whether the opposing party has provided evidence of a triable material fact as to the cause of action, issue of duty or defense. See Linden Partners v. Wilshire Linden Assocs.

(1998) 62 Cal.4th 508, 518; Choi v. Sagemark Consulting (2017) 18 Cal. App. 5th 308, 318 (citing Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 437c(o), (p)(2); Pipitone v. Williams (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 1437, 1449). The opposing party 'must set forth specific facts beyond the pleadings to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact.' Choi, 18 Cal. App. 5th at 318 (citing Cal. Code Civ. P. § 437c(p)(2)). 'There is a triable issue of fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.' Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850. The court must 'liberally construe the evidence in support of the [opposing party] and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.' Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 384, 389.

Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied owing to triable issues of material fact concerning what Defendant contends was the running of the pertinent statute of limitations. More specifically, there are triable issues of material fact as to: (1) when Plaintiffs discovered the basis for their CLRA claim against Defendant, and/or (2) when Plaintiffs should have discovered the basis for their CLRA claim Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3063357 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: UHLMEYER VS. BAKER SATISFACTION, INC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00020497-CU-BC-NC against Defendant. See Plaintiffs' UMF Nos. 17, 19, 21, 23-24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38. Defendant, in its reply brief, does not address or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' proposed additional disputed facts, notwithstanding the fact that a proper function of a reply brief is to do just that. See Nazir, 178 Cal. App. 4th at 249. To this point, the court may construe Defendant's lack of response as a concession that there exists a triable issue of material fact. See San Diego Rules of Court, Rule 2.1.19.B. Consequently, the court must conclude that there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether the statute of limitations on Plaintiffs' CLRA claim against Defendant has run, which conclusion warrants denial of Defendant's summary judgment motion. Given the foregoing, the court need not reach the issue of whether triable issue(s) of material fact exist as to the applicability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

Accordingly, the court denies Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Conclusion In light of the foregoing, the court denies Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, April 26, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of April 26, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3063357