Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2022-00018465-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 14, 2023

09/15/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00018465-CU-OR-CTL HARRISON MILLER TRUSTEES OF THE HARRISON AND JO ANNE MILLER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED MARCH 24 2016 VS COOPER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 05/25/2023

Defendant Dennis Cooper's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendant's request for judicial notice is granted. (ROA 63.) All objections are overruled.

The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues 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; 'no more is called for.' (Id. at 851.) The moving party must show that the undisputed facts, when applied to the issues framed by the pleadings, entitle the moving party to judgment. (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 66.) If the moving party carries this burden, it causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subject to its own burden of production to make a prima facie showing that a triable issue of material facts exists. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 850.) Courts must view the evidence and inferences 'in the light most favorable to the opposing party.' (Id. at 843.) As an initial matter, the motion for summary judgment challenged causes of action from the complaint prior to amendment. Because the court permitted amendment and a FAC was filed, it superseded the prior complaint and any arguments against it. The court agrees that the FAC resolved some of the issues raised in the motion for summary judgment but even those issues that it did not resolve do not warrant summary judgment. First, the court disagrees that Plaintiffs' omission of the alleged easement in this case from a complaint in a prior case against a different landowner is an admission that, at the time of the prior case, the alleged easement did not exist. Plaintiffs were not required to describe the currently alleged easement in that prior action and the existence of more than one easement is not patently inconsistent. Whether any easement was actually used over Defendant's property is highly disputed. Second, arguments related to the use of the property for commercial purposes rely on disputed facts.

The motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2991553  5