Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 24STLC01982, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STLC01982    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: 26

Hazani v. Dickson, et al.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Motion of Joseph Ariel Hazani, Son of David, Son of Remington, Son of Keith, Son of Jacob, for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff in propria persona, Joseph Ariel Hazani, Son of David, Son of Remington, Son of Keith, Son of Jacob (“Plaintiff”) brought this action for unknown relief against Defendant Deeann Dickson (“Defendant”) on March 20, 2024. Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 12 and 17, 2024. Defendant filed an answer in propria persona on April 22, 2024. On May 6, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s first Motion for Summary Judgment. (Minute Order, 05/06/24.) The Court then denied Plaintiff’s renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on June 18, 2024 and Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial on September 9, 2024. (Minute Orders, 06/18/24 and 09/09/24.)

Plaintiff now brings a Motion for Summary Adjudication, filed on October 29, 2024. No oppostion has been filed to date.

Discussion

A motion for summary adjudication, like a motion for summary judgment, must be brought upon at least 75 days’ notice when personally served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (a)(2), (f)(2).) The Court has no discretion to shorten the notice period since it relates to due process to the non-moving party.  (McMahon v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 112, 115-16.) However, if an opposing party files an opposition on merits and makes no objection to the shortened notice, the defective service or shortened notice is waived. (Yanez v. Vasquez (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 6 [citing Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697].) The instant Motion for Summary Adjudication is not accompanied by any proof of service demonstrating the 75-day notice period has been satisfied. Nor has Defendant filed any opposition demonstrating that the notice requirements have been waived.

The Motion also fails to meet other mandatory procedural requirements, including the filing and service of a separate statement of facts in support of the request for summary adjudication. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (b)(1), (f)(2).)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Motion of Joseph Ariel Hazani, Son of David, Son of Remington, Son of Keith, Son of Jacob, for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.