Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00484, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308

The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.  

The Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument.  For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then the Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) where the Court requests notice of intent to appear.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, a party seeking argument should notify "all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue."  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is requested.   

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative.  Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.  

Case Number: 23BBCV00484    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Eileen Lademar (Plaintiff) brings this action against Carmen Risiglione aka Rachel Carmen Esteban dba In2rekovery Foundation (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that she has been a tenant of Defendant in a sober living home for the past four years. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Defendant’s negligence caused multiple incidents of assault upon Plaintiff from other tenants. Plaintiff alleges further that Defendant kept the property in a derelict condition.

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint states causes of action for (1) Elder Abuse, (2) Negligence, (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), (4) Vicarious Liability, (5) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Retention, (6) Breach of Warranty of Habitability, and (7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED).

Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment as to the entire Complaint. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests summary adjudication as to each cause of action.  Although Plaintiff moves for summary judgment, she does not brief any overarching issue which would necessitate the entry of judgment on the matter as a whole. Instead, Plaintiff individually briefs each cause of action with respect to the existence of a triable issue of fact. As such, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as one for summary adjudication as to each cause of action and will rule accordingly lest all causes of action are bereft of a triable issue of fact.

Plaintiff also moves for summary adjudication of each cause of action in Defendant’s Cross-Complaint.

Defendant opposes the motion and Plaintiff replies.  The Plaintiff objects to the late filing of Defendant’s opposition; however, the Court has discretion to consider a late filing and does so here. CRC Rule 3.1300(d).

ANALYSIS: 

I.                LEGAL STANDARD 

Summary Judgment

The Court notes that Defendant’s opposition does not comply with Rule 3.1350.  In some instances a matter is disputed, albeit without stating “disputed,” and in other instances objections and argument is included in the column which is not code compliant.  In one instance the recitation to a movie “Pacific Heights” was included which is not appropriate.

Likewise, Plaintiff’s papers are also not code compliant.   Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Facts simply lays out 49 undisputed facts, but fails to set forth which causes of action they apply.  CRC Rule 3.1350(d) expressly requires the Separate Statement of Facts to set forth each cause of actions and each supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute.  This was not done.  From having reviewed the 49 facts, the Court does not believe that all the asserted undisputed material facts apply to each and every cause of action, and the Court is not charged with the responsibility to determine which facts apply to which cause of actions; it is the moving party’s responsibility to do that.

For example, Undisputed Fact 9 states, “Other people in the housing unit would go to the dumpsters and bring garbage to be kept in the housing unit.”  The Court is unable to determine what causes of action the Plaintiff believes this undisputed material facts applies.   From reviewing the causes of action, the Court does not believe it would apply to all of them.

The Court finds that both parties failed to file code complaint motions and the matter will be continued for the parties to file code compliant briefs.   The Court is not requesting additions to the papers other than presenting them in a code compliant manner.

The matter is continued to May 8, 2024 at 10:00 AM.  Code compliant papers shall be received by the Court no later than May 3, 2024 by 4:00 PM.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Eileen Lademar’s Motion for Summary Judgment came on regularly for hearing on April 19, 2024 was continued to April 22, 2024.  The matter is continued again to permit the parties to file code compliant papers.  The Court rules as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IS CONTINUED TO MAY 8, 2024 AT 10:00 AM. 

PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO FILE CODE COMPLAINT DOCUMENTS NO LATER THAN MAY 3, 2024 BY 4:00 PM.  COURTESY COPIES ARE REQUESTED BY THE COURT.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  April 23, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles