Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 20STCV05703, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 20STCV05703    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 205

 

 

 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MEHDI MOHAMMADI,   

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC, et al.,   

 

Defendants. 

 

  Case No.:  20STCV05703 

  

  Hearing Date:  May 2, 2023 

  [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: 

   DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT  

   GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC.’S  

   MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT  

   OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR  

   SUMMARY ADJUDICATION  

 

 

 

This case arises from an assault and battery of Plaintiff Mehdi Mohammadi outside a CVS.  Defendant Garfield Beach CVS, LLC has filed a motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, for summary adjudication.  CVS’ motion is procedurally defective in multiple respects.   

First, it fails to comply with CRC 3.1116 which states that when a deposition testimony is used as an exhibit, it must “contain only the relevant pages of the transcript.”  CVS attaches seventeen complete deposition transcripts rather than excerpting the relevant pages.   

Second, Rule 3.1116 requires that the relevant portion of the deposition testimony be “marked in a manner that calls attention to the testimony.”  CVS has not highlighted the relevant page and line numbers in each deposition transcript.   

Third, CRC 3.1110(f) states that [u]nless they are submitted by a self-represented party, electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.  Volume 2 of Plaintiffs’ compendium of exhibits does not contain the proper electronic bookmarking.   

Fourth, CVS’ separate statement also fails to comply with CRC 3.1350.  That rule states that in a separate statement, the “[c]itation to the evidence in support of each material fact must include reference to the exhibit, title, page and line numbers.”  CRC 3.1350 (d)(B)(3).  Several undisputed facts in CVS’ separate statement cite to the entire deposition transcript, without reference to the particular page and line numbers.  (See, e.g., Undisputed Material Fact Nos. 40, 44-61.)   

For these reasons, the Court denies without prejudice CVS’ motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, for summary adjudication. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: May 2, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court