Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01657, Date: 2025-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01657    Hearing Date: May 9, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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 required 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: 

Paul Drucker (Plaintiff) brings this action against Elizabeth Holder (Defendant) in connection with a property Plaintiff rented from Defendant at 7954 Radford Avenue, North Hollywood, California. Plaintiff alleges that he was injured by the presence of mold and other defects which Defendant refused to remediate. Plaintiff’s Complaint states causes of action for (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, (2) Negligence, and (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant argues that there exists no triable issue of fact as to any of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.¿(2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) C.C.P.¿§ 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to¿any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”¿ (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)¿ “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.”¿ (Juge¿v. County of Sacramento¿(1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing¿FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima¿(1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.)¿ 

¿ 

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (C.C.P.¿§437c(p)(2);¿Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc.¿(2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.¿(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)¿ 

¿ 

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v.¿Paetkau¿(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)¿ 

II.                 MERITS

As will be explained in detail below, the Court finds that Defendant’s motion should be denied without prejudice as the motion contains a number of procedural deficiencies. As the motion is denied purely on procedural grounds, the Court need not rule on the parties’ evidentiary objections. (See C.C.P. § 437c(q) [“…the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion.”].)

Memorandum

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1350(d)(3), a motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by a memorandum in support of the motion. CRC Rule 3.1113(b) explains that a memorandum in support of a motion must “must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”

Here, Defendant’s motion is accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities which is insufficient per the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1113(b). Defendant’s memorandum is a single page in length and contains an “Introduction” and the “Standard of Review”. The memorandum does not contain a statement of facts (though some are presented in the Introduction). The memorandum also contains no statement of the law as it applies to this case, with the only reference to case law or statute being the “Standard of Review” section discussing summary judgment in general. The memorandum also contains no legal argument or citation to evidence.

The purpose of the procedural rules for bringing a motion of summary judgment is to eliminate confusion and assist the Court in making an efficient determination of the merits of the case. Where a party has submitted a memorandum which presents no legal argument and cites to no evidence, this purpose is thwarted. While the Court could attempt to infer the legal arguments from Defendant’s Separate Statement and the evidence provided, it finds to do so would be problematic. Proceeding in this way would essentially have the Court improperly acting as an advocate for Defendant. Further, their exists the possibility that the Court considers arguments which Defendant does not actually wish to place before it and which Plaintiff would not have an opportunity to defend against. In other words, the Court declines to consider the merits of a motion which has been improperly briefed.

Separate Statement

Over the past several years, various courts have noticed certain problematic uses of separate statements. The Court of Appeal has recently urged trial courts to take a more active approach in policing separate statements. (See Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 865, 874-876.) And because the separate statement enables the court to focus its deliberations, proper preparation of the separate statement is critical to court function.

“The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Collins v. Hertz Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 64 quoting Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “To that end, the rules dictating the content and format for separate statements submitted by moving and responding parties ‘permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions for ... summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are disputed.’” (Id. quoting United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 335.) “That goal is defeated where… the trial court is forced to wade through stacks of documents…in an effort to cull through the arguments and determine what evidence is admitted and what remains at issue.” (Id.)

C.C.P. § 437c(b)(1) requires a motion for summary judgment be accompanied by a Separate Statement which consists of a statement of each undisputed material facts followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. Failure to comply with this requirement may, in the Court’s discretion, constitute sufficient grounds for denying the motion. (Id.)

CRC Rule 3.1350(d) expounds upon the above requirement in two ways. First, CRC Rule 3.1350(d)(1) requires that the separate statement separately identify:

(A)    Each cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion; and

(B)    Each supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute with respect to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion.

Second, CRC Rule 3.1350(d)(3) states that references to the evidence must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers. As will be explained below, the Court finds Defendant’s Separate Statement is deficient for failure to adhere to both CRC Rule 3.1350(d)(1) & 3.1350(d)(3).

To obtain summary judgment, Defendant is required to negate an essential element as to each of Plaintiff’s claims. Here, Plaintiff has asserted three separate causes of action, each of which must be negated to obtain summary judgment. Despite this, Defendant’s separate statement contains no identification of which facts are relevant to which cause of action (or any essential element thereof). The Court finds Defendant’s presentation of the same 31 Undisputed Material Facts for each of the three causes of action, to be antithetical to the purpose of CRC Rule 3.1350(d). The Court does not see how the same 31 material facts could speak to the essential elements of each of three different causes of action. This issue is only compounded by the fact that Defendant’s memorandum also contains no discussion of any cause of action or elements. Unless the elements for each cause of action were the same or substantially similar, which they are not, logic dictates that some material facts will be inapplicable to some of Plaintiffs’ causes of action. As the moving party, CRC Rule 3.1350(d) places the onus on Defendant to draw those connections.

Expert Declarations

Lastly, the Court notes that Defendant’s motion appears to rely on two expert declarations filed independently of her “Appendix of Evidence”. It is the Court’s understanding that these declarations are intended to serve as evidence in support of the motion. If this was the case, they should have been attached to Defendant’s “Appendix of Evidence”. Even were the declarations attached as evidence, the Court finds it troubling that they are completely absent from Defendant’s Separate Statement. The Court has discretion to either consider or disregard evidence in summary judgment which was not presented in a Separate Statement. (See Ghazarian v. Magellan Health, Inc. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 171, 183; C.C.P. § 437c(b)(3).) Here, however, the Court lacks the tools to evaluate whether it can even exercise its discretion. Due to the aforementioned deficiencies in the memorandum and Separate Statement, the Court is left to guess as to what purpose these declarations serve.

Conclusion

In short, various substantive and procedural omissions have combined to render Defendant’s motion for summary judgment ineffective. The Court declines to presuppose the nature of Defendant’s legal arguments as concerns Plaintiff’s causes of action. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice. This permits Defendant to refile her motion for summary judgment with a proper memorandum and separate statement without bringing a motion for reconsideration pursuant to C.C.P. § 1008(b).

--- 

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 

Elizabeth Holder’s Motion for Summary Judgment came on regularly for hearing on May 9, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

TRIAL PREPARATION ORDER TO ISSUE.

OSC RE TRIAL BINDERS IS SET FOR JUNE 2, 2025 (NON-APPEARANCE)  

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.