Judge: Lindsey E. Martinez, Case: 2021-01228163, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

1.    Case Management Conference

2.    Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Plaintiff Elizabeth Clark move for summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Christopher. In the alternative, Plaintiff moves for summary adjudication. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is denied in its entirety.


A plaintiff seeking summary judgment meets its 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(1).) Once the plaintiff has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. (Id.)


The moving party’s papers are to be strictly construed, while the opposing party’s papers are to be liberally construed. (Committee to Save Beverly Highland Homes Ass’n v. Beverly Highland (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1260.) A court may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence on a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, and all evidentiary conflicts are to be resolved against the moving party. (McCabe v. American Honda Motor Corp. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1119.)


A judgment creditor may extend the life of an unsatisfied money judgment by filing a separate action on the judgment within the 10-year statute of limitations. “A separate action on the judgment is expressly authorized in section 683.050, which states: ‘Nothing in this chapter limits any right the judgment creditor may have to bring an action on a judgment, but any such action shall be commenced within the period prescribed by Section 337.5.’ ” (Pratali v. Gates (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 632, 637.) A judgment creditor is entitled to commence an independent action on the judgment within the ten-year limitation period defined in [Code of Civil Procedure] section 337.5. (OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 185, 194 [citations omitted].) To prevail in an action on the judgment, a plaintiff must show she has an unsatisfied judgment against the defendant and her action was filed timely. (Green v. Zissis (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1223.) 


The Declaration of Edward G. Operini filed in support of the instant motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication attaches as exhibits: (A) a true and correct copy of the October 6, 2011 Judgment in Clark v. Gage I; (B) a true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Costs filed in Clark v. Gage I; and (C) a true and correct copy of the Clark v. Gage I docket. (See ROA No. 17.) The Declaration of Elizabeth Clark filed in support of the instant motion discusses Christopher Gage’s ties to the State of California and Clark’s lack of knowledge regarding Gage’s visits to the state. (See ROA No. 19.) Plaintiff has not provided any other evidence in support of the instant motion. Plaintiff did not meet her burden to demonstrate that an unsatisfied judgment exists. The motion for summary judgment is denied.


The issues identified for summary adjudication by Plaintiff would not completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty. The motion for summary adjudication is denied.


Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied. Discovery responses are subject to reasonable dispute and cannot be judicially noticed for the truth of the matter asserted. Additionally, there is no declaration indicating that the submitted documents are true and correct copies of the discovery requests and responses. The submitted articles also are subject to reasonable dispute.


Moving party to give notice.