Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 20STCV38250, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV38250 Hearing Date: September 22, 2022 Dept: 15
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
On
October 6, 2020, Plaintiffs Linda Phipps, Raymond Phipps, Sara Phipps, and
Steven Phipps filed a complaint alleging a first cause of action for negligence
and a second cause of action for strict liability based on the death of William
Phipps due to asbestos exposure.
Defendant
Copeland Corporation LLC filed a motion for summary adjudication “of specific
claims for recovery.” (Notice of Motion
at p. 2.) Defendant seeks adjudication
of “the survivorship action (including medical expenses and loss of income by
the estate of Mr. William Phipps), the wrongful death action loss of consortium
claim by Mrs. Linda Phipps, wrongful death medical expenses, and loss of income
claims by all remaining Plaintiffs.” (Ibid.)
This
motion for summary adjudication is defective in several ways. First, “[i]f summary adjudication is sought .
. . the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or
issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be
repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material
facts.” (Cal. Rule of Ct., rule
3.1350(b).) Defendant’s notice of motion
does not identify the specific causes of action to be adjudicated. It refers to “survivorship action,” “wrongful
death action loss of consortium claim,” and “loss of income claims.” It does not identify either the first cause
of action for negligence or the second cause of action for strict
liability. Therefore, the notice of
motion is unclear which of these two causes of action are to be summarily
adjudicated.
Second,
Defendant’s separate statement of undisputed material facts does not repeat
verbatim the specific causes of action or claims for damages to be
adjudicated. Rather it merely lists a
set of facts.
Third,
Defendant moves for summary adjudication of certain types of damages under Code
of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1). However, that subdivision “does not permit
summary adjudication of a single item of compensatory damage which does not
dispose of an entire cause of action.” (DeCastro
West Chodorow & Burns, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th
410, 422.) Pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 437c, subdivision (t), “a party may move for summary
adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive
damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative
defense, or issue of duty,” if the parties stipulate that the issue may be so
adjudicated. Here, Defendant asks the
court to determine that certain types of damages are not available, but Defendant
does not prove that adjudicating those types of damages will completely dispose
of one of the two causes of action. To
the contrary, Defendant acknowledges that potential damages will remain to be
decided, such as “funeral and loss of consortium damages of the children.” (Motion at p. 5.) Because this motion does not fully dispose of
a cause of action, the court cannot decide a claim of damages without a
stipulation of the parties.
The
motion is DENIED.
The
remaining categories of damages available in this case that are not barred by
the award in the personal injury case will determine the jury instructions to
be given. Because the parties disagree
about the types of damages available in this case, the Court orders the parties
to brief the issue. By September 29,
2022, each side is to file a brief of up to ten pages identifying for each
plaintiff (1) the types of damages sought by the plaintiff, (2) legal authority
establishing those types of damages are available for that plaintiff, and (3)
legal authority showing that type of damages is not precluded by the decision
in the personal injury case. By October
6, 2022, each side may file a responsive brief of no more than five pages.
The
moving party is to give notice.