Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 21STCV44854, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV44854, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44854 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 30

GINA MARIE EARL vs CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure 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.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).) “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 the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; Code Civ. Proc., §437c(c).)

Discussion

Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment on September 28, 2023. At that time, the operative pleading was the original Complaint. After Defendant’s motion was filed, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on December 7, 2023.

An amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints. (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1124, 1130-1131.) The amended complaint furnishes the sole basis for the cause of action, and the original complaint ceases to have any effect either as a pleading or as a basis for judgment. (Id.) Since there is but one complaint in a civil action, the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint. (Id.) Accordingly, once an amended complaint is filed, it is error to grant summary adjudication on a cause of action contained in a previous complaint. (Id.)

In State Compensation, the employer filed a motion seeking summary adjudication of a fraud claim. After the employer filed the motion, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The trial court heard the employer’s motion and granted summary adjudication of the fraud claim in favor of the employer. The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandate to set aside the order. The Court of Appeal granted the petition for a writ of mandate and held that the filing of the first amended complaint rendered moot the employer’s motion.

Accordingly, caselaw holds that an amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint and “moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.” It does not identify any exception. As a result, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which was directed at the original complaint, became moot when the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint on December 7, 2023.

Therefore, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied as moot under the holding in State Compensation that an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.

In addition, the motion for summary judgment as to the cross-complaint relies on the motion for summary judgment as to the original complaint, and also cannot be granted.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, is DENIED as MOOT.