Judge Gary Y. Tanaka, Case 19TRCV00883 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Wednesday, April 19, 2023

Department B Calendar No. 9

The Village Condominium Owners’ Association, Inc. v. Kelly Charles, et al.

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on October 4, 2019. Plaintiff alleged the following facts: Defendants have maintained a washer/dryer in their unit in violation of the governing documents. Plaintiff alleged the following causes of action: 1. Breach of Equitable Servitudes; 2. Abate a Nuisance; 3. Trespass; 4. Declaratory Relief; 5. Unjust Enrichment.

On December 3, 2019, Defendant Kelly Charles filed a Cross-Complaint alleging eleven causes of action including contract-based claims, tort claims, and FEHA claims stating that she is being discriminated against due to a disability. On February 6, 2020, Cross-Defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the entire Cross-Complaint. On August 10, 2020, the Court denied the motion.

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “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.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (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.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” CCP § 437c(p)(2). “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 the cause of action or a defense thereto.” CCP § 437c(p)(2). “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467.

“A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(1).

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; CCP § 437c(c).)

Defendant/Cross-Complainant moves for summary judgment. Defendant/Cross-Complainant does not specify whether she seeks summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Complaint or as to her own Cross-Complaint. The Court notes, however, the points and authorities appear to only address the claims asserted by Plaintiff in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Moving party also refers to “summary adjudication” in her motion (page 4, line 6) but the notice of motion does not state clearly that she seeks summary adjudication. In addition, the separate statement does not comply with the procedural requirements necessary to seek summary adjudication. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(h). Thus, this is only a motion for summary judgment and the Court will accordingly rule on this motion as a motion for summary judgment, only.

Defendant fails to meet her burden to show that each cause of action has no merit by showing that one or more elements of the causes of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to each cause of action. Therefore, the burden does not shift to Plaintiff to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to each cause of action. CCP § 437c(p)(2).

The motion for summary judgment must be denied because neither the motion nor separate statement of facts addressed, at all, the fourth and fifth causes of action. To obtain summary judgment, Defendant must submit evidence as to each cause of action of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Lopez v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 705, 714 (stating that moving defendant failed to “define all of the theories alleged in the complaint and challenge each factually.”; See, also, Conn v. National Can Corp. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 630, 638 (stating that “the initial duty to define the issues presented by the complaint and to challenge them factually is on the defendant who seeks a summary judgment.”)

If there is one, single material fact in dispute, a motion for summary judgment must be denied. Versa Tech., Inc. v. Superior Court (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 237, 240. When the notice of motion seeks only summary judgment, the presence of any triable issue requires denial of the motion. The court may not summarily adjudicate claims or defenses as to which no triable issue was raised unless requested in the notice of motion. Homestead Sav. v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498.

Here, Defendant failed to address at all the fourth and fifth causes of action, let alone, attempt to present evidence and facts to show that essential elements of the causes of action cannot be established. Thus, the motion for summary judgment must be denied. The Court notes that, belatedly, Defendant attempted to make some brief arguments in the Reply referencing the fourth and fifth causes of action. However, it was incumbent upon Defendant to present facts, evidence, and argument in the original motion to address the fourth and fifth causes of action. Defendant failed to meet her initial burden pursuant to CCP § 437c(p)(2).