Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV00279, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 23SMCV00279    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           National Contractors, Inc. v. Promenade Properties IV, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV00279

MOTION:                  Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

HEARING DATE:   2/7/2023

 

Legal Standard

 

            A party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. (CCP, § 437c(a).) “The purpose of the law of summary judgment 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.)

 

“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.” (CCP, § 437c(f)(1).) If a party seeks summary adjudication as an alternative to a request for summary judgment, the request must be clearly made in the notice of the motion. (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1542, 1544.)  “[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 pursuant to” subdivision (t). (CCP, § 437c(t).) 

 

            To prevail, the evidence submitted must show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (CCP, § 437c(c).) The motion cannot succeed unless the evidence leaves no room for conflicting inferences as to material facts; the court has no power to weigh one inference against another or against other evidence. (Murillo v. Rite Stuff Food Inc. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 833, 841.) In determining whether the facts give rise to a triable issue of material fact, “[a]ll doubts as to whether any material, triable, issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment…” (Gold v. Weissman (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1198-99.) “In other words, the facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences there from must be accepted as true.” (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 179.) However, if adjudication is otherwise proper the motion “may not be denied on grounds of credibility,” except when a material fact is the witness’s state of mind and “that fact is sought to be established solely by the [witness’s] affirmation thereof.” (CCP, § 437c(e).) 

 

            Once the moving party has met their burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (CCP § 437c(p)(1).) “[T]here is no obligation on the opposing party... to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element... necessary to sustain a judgment in his favor.” (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.) 

 

“The pleadings play a key role in a summary judgment motion. The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues and to frame the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment proceeding.” (Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486, 493, quotations and citations omitted.) “Accordingly, the burden of a defendant moving for summary judgment only requires that he or she negate plaintiff's theories of liability as alleged in the complaint; that is, a moving party need not refute liability on some theoretical possibility not included in the pleadings.” (Ibid.) 

 

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

 

The objections to evidence are immaterial to the Court’s ruling. (CCP § 437c(q).)

 

Analysis

 

Plaintiff’s motion fails for procedural reasons, including that it does not properly notice the issues presented. (See CRC Rule 3.1350.) Rule 3.1350(d) of the California Rules of Court provide that a separate statement in support of the motion requires the following:

 

(1)  The Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of a motion must separately identify:

(A)  Each cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion; and

(B)  Each supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute with respect to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion.

 

Here, the notice states that:

 

“there is no defense to the action and no triable issue as to any material fact; that Plaintiff is entitled to an order that adjudicates the notice of non-responsibility recorded by OWNER DEFENDANT PROMENADE as invalid, because it was not verified under the penalty of perjury by the Owner pursuant to Ca. Civ. Code §8444(b); the lease signed between the OWNER DEFENDANT PROMENADE and TENANT DEFENDANT INTEROR DEFINE, INC., authorized tenant improvements and; DEFENDANT PROMENADE was a participating owner who took an active role in causing the tenant improvements to be initiated to completion by DEFENDANT INTERIOR, further confirming the notice of non-responsibility’s ineffectiveness and Plaintiff’s mechanic lien’s valid application to the Property at issue, with orders affirming each fact and legal conclusion contained in the Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts.”

 

This does not notice the two issues presented in the motion, which are the adjudication of the 19th and 20th affirmative defenses. This defect carries over to the separate statement requirements, which also fails to address the evidence on an issue-by-issue basis. Thus, the motion is denied for lack of proper notice and failure to substantially comply with the separate statement requirements set forth in the California Rules of Court.

 

For these reasons, the motion is DENIED.