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
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.
|
|
|
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.