Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2017-00936852, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Plaintiff Violette Mathis’ motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication on the six, seventh, eighth, tenth, and twelfth causes of action of her complaint against Defendant Luke Chadwick is DENIED.

The Court notes that CVM Corporation is also a plaintiff to this action, and the seventh cause of action is a direct action by it against Chadwick.  CVM is not a moving party, however, and Plaintiff Mathis does not have standing to seek summary judgment or adjudication on CVM’s cause of action.

Moreover, to move for summary adjudication, Plaintiff Mathis was required to specify in her notice of motion and motion the claim, causes of action, or issues she is moving on.  CRC 3.1350.  The noticed issues for summary adjudication must then be stated, verbatim, in the separate statement – with separately stated undisputed facts for each noticed issue.  CRC 3.1350(b), (d).

Failure to comply with the separate statement requirement constitutes ground for denial of the motion, in the Court's discretion.  Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(1).

In her notice of motion, Plaintiff identifies the causes of action for which she seeks summary adjudication – causes of action “Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12.”  [ROA #428 at 1:28.]

But Plaintiff does not break down her separate statement by causes of action.  [ROA #423.] 

Given the inadequacy of Plaintiff’s separate statement for a motion for summary adjudication, the Court would normally address the motion only as a motion for summary judgment.  But, as discussed above, Plaintiff cannot obtain summary judgment on the causes of action she has moved on.

The Motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.