Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21NWCV00697, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00697    Hearing Date: July 17, 2024    Dept: C

JEN AND MI LU FAMILY, LLC V. JUMPSTART BODYFUEL, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:  21NWCV00697

HEARING:  7/17/24 @ 10:30 A.M.

#7

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Jumpstart Bodyfuel, LLC and Linda Ikeda’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

On June 4, 2024, Defendants Jumpstart Bodyfuel, LLC and Linda Ikeda filed a motion for summary judgment and scheduled it to be heard on July 17, 2024. Parties moving for summary judgment must provide at least 75 days’ notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a)(2); UAS Management, Inc. v. Mater Misericordiae Hosp. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 357, 368.)  Defendants provided fewer than 75 days’ notice. Further, courts cannot shorten the 75-day notice required for summary judgment motions, without the parties' stipulation to do so. (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1258, 1262-67.) Here, according to the opposing papers, the parties did not stipulate to do so.

Further, Defendants did not file any memorandum of points and authorities until July 10, 2024, one week before the hearing date. Also, Defendants called it a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities. The failure to file a memorandum supporting a motion may be construed as an admission of an absence of merit.  (California Rule of Court, rule 3.1113(a).) Further, a judge in a civil case is not "'obligated to seek out theories [a party] might have advanced, or to articulate … that which … [a party] has left unspoken.'"  (Mesecher v. County of San Diego (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1677, 1686.)

Based on the above, the motion is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.