Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV00693, Date: 2024-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00693    Hearing Date: December 20, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Jadidi v. Azzurra Homeowners Association, Case no. 22SMCV00693

Hearing date December 20, 2024

Defendant Azzurra HOA’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff Jadidi, in pro per, sues defendant Azzurra Homeowners Association for violation of CC&Rs, private nuisance and negligence arising from damages to the wall of Jadidi’s condominium. Plaintiff alleges defendant failed to make mandatory repairs to common area walls bordering plaintiff’s unit and, in a previous attempt to make repairs, further damaged the unit. Defendant moves for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff failed to produce facts in discovery per Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 653.

Defendant argues plaintiff’s opposition is untimely; this is incorrect. Plaintiff filed the opposition 12/6/24 but a clerical error resulted in rejection of the initial filing. Clerk Not. of Error 12/13/24.

Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(a)(1) a party may move for summary judgment in any action if it is contended that the action has no merit. Pursuant to §437c(f)(1) a court may summarily adjudicate causes of action. A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if there is no triable issue of material fact, and the record establishes that as a matter of law, plaintiff cannot prevail on a cause of action. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c). A defendant met its burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the party shows one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or there is a complete defense to the cause of action. Once defendant met its burden, the burden shifts to plaintiff to show a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2). A defendant moving for summary judgment may rely on a plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses to shift the burden of proof as to whether there are triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment to plaintiff. Union Bank, supra.

Defendant argues plaintiff failed to provide responsive answers to requests for discovery. Defendant asserts plaintiff provided a single-word answer, “no,” to Judicial Council form interrogatory number 17.1, which requires plaintiff to state all facts which support the contention that defendant committed the alleged acts on which liability is predicated. Decl. Szymanski para. 7; exh. E. Defendant argues plaintiff failed to include a separate statement in opposition to the instant motion, in violation of common and statutory law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(b)(3); Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 115 (holding without a separate statement of undisputed facts it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of disputed facts). This is sufficient to shift the burden to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact.

Plaintiff’s response to Judicial Council form interrogatory number 17.1 fails to establish facts in support of plaintiff's allegations. Plaintiff does not provide a separate statement of undisputed facts or underlying evidence in support of the claims. Plaintiff includes a hearsay declaration but attaches no exhibits or additional declarations demonstrating the existence of triable facts. Plaintiff fails to meet its burden of proving there is a question of material fact. Without any evidence, plaintiff fails to meet the evidentiary burden, and the motion must be GRANTED.