Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV04627, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24SMCV04627 Hearing Date: February 20, 2025 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 24SMCV04627
MOTION: Motion
for Summary Judgment
HEARING DATE: 2/20/2025
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.)¿
Analysis
Plaintiff Gary Abrams moves for
summary judgment on his complaint against Defendant Susan Mikhaela. Plaintiff
failed to supply the mandatory separate statement. (CRC Rule 3.1350.) Further, Plaintiff
also did not provide the 75-day jurisdictional notice period. (CCP §
437c(a)(2).) Plaintiff served this motion approximately 67 days before February
20, 2025, hearing date. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the
motion.
In addition, pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure sections 391.1, 391.3 and 391.6, there is a mandatory stay
until 10 days after the Court rules on a pending motion for security. Therefore, the motion is continued until
March 27, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., along with the Case Management Conference which
is currently scheduled for March 21, 2025.