Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV03788, Date: 2024-02-01 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: 23STCV03788    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 71

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

WESLEY ROBBINS, 

 

         vs.

 

CARL SHAFF, II, et al.

 Case No.:  21STCV03788

 

 

 

 Hearing Date:  February 1, 2024

 

Defendants Edwin Kawasaki’s, Steve Radell’s, William Miller’s, William Janson’s, Lois Evans’, Caj Brejtfus’, and Carl Shaff’s (deceased) motion for summary adjudication of pro per Plaintiff Wesley Robbins’ 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 12th, and 15th causes of action in his first amended complaint is denied. 

 

Defendants Edwin Kawasaki (“Kawasaki”), Steve Radell (“Radell”), William Miller (“Miller”), William Janson (“Janson”), Lois Evans (“Evans”), Caj Brejtfus (“Brejtfus”), and Carl Shaff (deceased) (“Shaff”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) move for summary adjudication of pro per Plaintiff Wesley Robbins’ (“Robbins”) (“Plaintiff”) 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 12th, and 15th causes of action in his first amended complaint.[1]  (Notice Motion, pgs. 2-3.)

 

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 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).)

Moving Defendants’ separate statement is in violation of CRC, Rule 3.1350(d) because it fails to identify each cause of action in its separate statement for its motion for summary adjudication.  Accordingly, Moving Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is denied on the basis its separate statement is defective.

 

Conclusion

Moving Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 12th, and 15th causes of action is denied. 

Moving Party to give notice.

 

Dated:  February _____, 2024

                                                                            


Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court

 



[1] The Court notes the operative pleading is the second amended complaint (“SAC”), not the first amended complaint as noted in Moving Defendants’ notice of motion.