Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV40697, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV40697    Hearing Date: May 30, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     May 30, 2025                                     TRIAL DATE:  August 18, 2025

CASE:                         John Doe #1 E.E. v. The General Council of the Assemblies of God, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV40697

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant The Southern California District Council of the Assemblies of God

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

            Plaintiff John Doe #1 E.E. brings this childhood sexual abuse case against Defendant, The Southern California District Council of the Assemblies of God, among others, asserting seven causes of action.

            On January 31, 2025, Defendant filed a notice of motion for summary judgment.

            Defendant has not filed a separate statement, supporting declarations, or a memorandum of points of authorities.  The summary judgment statute requires that the motion “be supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken” as well as “a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1).). California Rules of Court (CRC), rule 3.1113(a) also mandates that a party filing a motion, such as a motion for summary judgment, must serve and file a supporting memorandum.  CRC Rule 3.1113(a) likewise permits a court to construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion is not meritorious.

            Given Defendant’s failure to observe the requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 437c and CRC Rule 3.1113, the court finds Defendant’s motion for summary judgment lacks merit.

The motion is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   May 30, 2025