Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 20STCV30823 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Datametica Solutions, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Sea Level, LLC (“Sea Level”) and Cross-Defendants Peter Mertz and T.R. Youngblood (collectively, the “Sea Level Parties”)

This action arises out of a business relationship. On August 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) breach of written contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) common counts; (4) account stated; and (5) violation of Civil Code section 1738.10, et seq. Moving Defendant subsequently asserted cross-claims against Sea Level and the Sea Level Parties; the currently operative second amended cross-complaint (the “SAXC”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) common counts; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) fraud.

On December 23, 2021, Moving Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication (the “Motion”) to the Complaint and to 16 of the affirmative defenses asserted in Sea Level’s answer (the “Answer”) to the SAXC.

On August 3, 2022, the Court denied the Motion with respect to the Complaint. The Court continued the hearing on the balance of the Motion to allow the Sea Level Parties to conduct additional discovery regarding the affirmative defenses asserted in the SAXC that the Motion addressed.

On December 20, 2022, the Sea Level Parties filed their supplemental opposition to the Motion (the “Supplemental Opposition”). The Supplemental Opposition does not include supporting declarations or additional evidence.

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.) California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) 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.)

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. (CCP § 437c, subd. (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.)

A moving party may rely on factually devoid discovery responses to shift the burden of proof. (Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590.) Once the burden shifts as a result of the factually devoid discovery responses, the responding party must set forth the specific facts which prove the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Id.) Where a moving party alleges that a plaintiff lacks evidence of a particular matter based on discovery responses, the defendant’s discovery must have been specifically directed at that particular matter in order to show that an opposing party has no evidence to support a particular proposition in connection with a motion for summary adjudication. (Gulf Ins. Co. v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 114, 135-36.) The opposing party’s responses to comprehensive discovery must fully disclose all evidence known to them at the time of their responses. (Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 106.) If the opposing party responds to comprehensive interrogatories seeking all known facts with boilerplate answers that restate their allegations, or simply provide laundry lists of people and/or documents, the burden of production will almost certainly be shifted to them once the moving party moves for summary judgment and properly presents the factually devoid discovery responses. (Id. at 107.)

The Motion provides evidence of the Sea Level Parties’ boilerplate discovery responses to discovery requests targeting the 6th-21st affirmative defenses. This showing is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the Sea Level Parties to raise factual issues regarding the existence of evidence to support these defenses. (See Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 107.) The Supplemental Opposition does not include additional evidence or make arguments regarding the existence of such evidence. Accordingly, the Sea Level Parties have not satisfied their burden to raise triable issues of fact regarding the affirmative defenses and Moving Defendant is therefore entitled to summary adjudication of these affirmative defenses. The Court GRANTS the Motion as to the 6th-21st affirmative defenses in the SAXC.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court