Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV24190, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties
concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon
resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an
agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if
you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by
notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org.  Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.



           
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear
at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue
the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties
in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to
argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words
"SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    
If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via
Court-Connect.

If
the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling,
the Court will take the  matter off calendar.

                       
  

            Note
that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court. 
 

 

            If you
submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or
thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the
court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 20STCV24190    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Jisuk Kim’s and Chris J. Lee’s motion for summary judgment of Plaintiff Eok Jin Kim’s second amended complaint is denied.   

Defendants Jisuk Kim’s and Chris J. Lee’s motion in the alternative for summary judgment adjudication is denied as to the 1st and 2nd causes of action.

Defendants Jisuk Kim (“Jisuk”) and Chris J. Lee (“Lee”) (collectively, “Defendants”)[1] move for summary judgment of Plaintiff Eok Jin Kim’s (“Eok Jin”) (“Plaintiff”) second amended complaint (“SAC”).[2]  (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §437c.)

Defendants move in the alternative for summary adjudication of three issues with regard to the two causes of action: (1) Jisuk and Lee are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff never conveyed or reserved a life estate; (2) Plaintiff cannot prevail on his cause of action for financial elder abuse; and (3) Plaintiff cannot prevail on his cause of action for quiet title to all or any part of the real property that is the subject of this action.  (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2.)

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff’s 2/15/24 evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Jisuk Kim (“Jisuk”) are sustained as to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, and overruled as to No. 17.

Plaintiff’s 2/15/24 evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Chis Lee (“Lee”) are overruled as to Nos. 1 and 2.

Plaintiff’s 2/15/24 evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Gary A. Laff (“Laff”) are sustained as to Exhibits 6 and 8.

Plaintiff’s 2/15/24 evidentiary objections to deposition transcript exhibits are overruled.

CRC Violations

CRC, Rule 3.1350(d) provides that when multiple causes of action, issues or defenses are presented for summary adjudication in one motion, each cause of action, issue or defense to which the motion is directed must have a separate section heading indicating the issue number, cause of action, and specifying the issue. The headings must be followed by two columns.  (CRC, Rule 3.1350(d); see CRC, Rule 3.1350(h) [illustrating format for separate statements in a motion for summary adjudication].)  Failure to comply with the requirements for filing a separate statement may in the trial judge’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denial of the motion.  (C.C.P. §437c(b)(1).)

Defendants’ separate statement is in violation of CRC, Rule 3.1350(h) because it fails to follow the format required for submitted a separate statement.  Further, Defendants’ separate statement fails to identify the cause of action related to each issue in violation of CRC, Rule 3.1350(d).  (See, e.g., Defendants’ Separate Statement, Issue No. 1.)  Further, CRC, Rule 3.1350(d)(2) states the separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion.  Defendants’ separate statement fails to address material facts at issue in the SAC and instead addresses issues that are not material, or not at issue in SAC. 

Finally, Defendants’ memorandum of points and authorities fails to cite to the numbered separate statement and instead cites to individual pieces of evidence.  Defendants’ failure to cite to the separate statement in its argument provides the Court no assistance in determining if the separate statement includes the cited evidence used to support Defendants’ argument.  

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and alternatively motion for summary adjudication is denied on the basis their separate statement is defective.

Procedural Background

On June 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in the instant action.  On June 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint (“FAC”).  On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative SAC against Defendants alleging two causes of action (1) financial abuse of an elder; and (2) quiet title/cancellation of instrument.  (See SAC.) 

On December 8, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion.  Plaintiff filed his opposition on February 15, 2024.  Defendants filed their reply on February 22, 2024.

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.

Defendants’ motion in the alternative for summary adjudication is denied as to the 1st and 2nd causes of action.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  February _____, 2024