Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or in the alternative for summary adjudication is an oversize brief.  Motions for summary judgment have a 20 page limit.  (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1113(d).)  Plaintiff filed a 33 page motion for summary judgment.   

The Court has discretion to disregard Plaintiff’s¿oversize brief.  An¿oversize brief is treated the same as a¿late-filed brief. (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1113(g).)  The Court has discretion to disregard¿late-filed papers and therefore also has discretion to disregard oversize briefs.  (See¿Cal. R. Ct. 3.1300(d).) 

Further, Plaintiff seeks summary adjudication of at least 21 issues in their notice of motion.¿ Cal. R. Ct. 3.1350(b), governing the format of summary judgment papers, provides that¿each issue to be summarily adjudicated “must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the¿separate statement of undisputed material facts.”  Failure to state¿each issue verbatim in the¿separate statement is grounds for denying the motion.  (See¿CCP § 437c(b)(l)¿(“The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.”); see also¿Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto¿(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 744¿(“Here defendants’ separate statement reflects no attempt to comply with [CRC 3.1350(b)].¿That alone precludes a holding that the trial court erred in denying the motion.”). 

Here, as in¿Schmidlin, Plaintiff’s¿separate statement does not comply with¿Rule 3.1350(b).  The¿separate statement does not set out¿each issue for summary adjudication verbatim as the rule requires.¿ 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, for summary adjudication.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: September 21, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court