Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Tran v. Nguyen, Date: 2022-11-23 Tentative Ruling
TENTATIVE RULING:
Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff Donna Tran moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication 1) against Defendant Hoang Thi Hue on Donna Tran's third cause of action for recovery of community property transferred to Defendant Hue in the amount of $108,000.00 and 2) against Defendant Hue on each of Defendant Hue’s 18 affirmative defenses. For the following reasons, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.
A “party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact . . . .” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question.” (Id. at 851.)
A defendant moving for summary judgment satisfies his or her initial burden by showing that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”), § 437c(p)(2).) A cause of action “cannot be established” if the undisputed facts presented by the defendant prove the contrary of the plaintiff’s allegations as a matter of law. (Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1597.) Alternatively, a moving defendant can show that a cause of action “cannot be established” by submitting evidence—such as discovery admissions and responses—that the plaintiff does not have and cannot reasonably obtain evidence to establish an essential element of his cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1995) 25 Cal.4th at 854-55; see also Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590 (finding moving defendant may show plaintiff’s lack of evidence by factually devoid discovery responses after plaintiff has had adequate opportunity for discovery).) “If plaintiffs respond to comprehensive interrogatories seeking all known facts with boilerplate answers that restate their allegations, or simply provide laundry lists of people and/or documents, the burden of production will almost certainly be shifted to them once defendants move for summary judgment and properly present plaintiffs' factually devoid discovery responses.” (Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 107.)
Once the moving party meets that burden, the burden shifts to the party opposing MSJ to show, by reference to specific facts, the existence of a triable issue as to that affirmative defense or cause of action. (Id.; Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App 4th 562, 575.)
Family Code, § 1100 (b) provides that “A spouse may not make a gift of community personal property, or dispose of community personal property for less than fair and reasonable value, without the written consent of the other spouse.” “Community property principles of equal management and shared responsibility mandate that the nonconsenting spouse is entitled to invalidate in its entirety the other spouse's transfer of community real property.” (Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1991) 54 Cal.3d 26, 47.)
California courts have held that gifts or transfers of community personal and real property by one spouse, without the written consent of the other spouse, may be set aside and recovered by the non-consenting spouse. (See Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1991) 54 Cal.3d 26, 31–35; 11 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Community Property, §§ 137–145, pp. 704–712.)
Here, Plaintiff has met her initial burden by providing evidence that Bruce Tran made gifts of community property to Ms. Hue while married to Donna Tran in the amount of $108,000 without Donna Tran’s consent. (Bruce Tran Dec., ¶¶ 6-12; Donna Tran Dec., ¶¶ 5-11.) Defendant, having failed to oppose the motion, failed to meet her shifted burden.
Plaintiff has also met her initial burden of showing Defendant lacks evidence to support any of Defendant’s affirmative defenses. (UMF 16-33; Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590.) Plaintiff has shown that the discovery requests seeking information regarding Defendant’s affirmative defenses are broad enough to meet Plaintiff’s initial burden. (Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1441-42.) Defendant has not opposed the motion and thus has not carried her shifted burden.
Plaintiff to give notice.