Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2020-010140197, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

The Motion by Defendants Pinnacle Surety Services, Inc., Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., and Kevin Cathcart (collectively, “Defendants”) seeking summary adjudication of causes of actions and the claim for punitive damages in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Shawn Blume (“Plaintiff”) is DENIED.

To move for summary adjudication, the party moving must specify in its notice of motion and motion the claim, causes of action, or issues on which it is moving. 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).

CRC 3.1350(d)(1)  provides that “(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 that cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion.

CRC 3.1350(d)(2) provides that “The separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion.” 

Defendants’ moving Separate Statement does not comply with CRC 3.1350.  Plaintiff objected to it on this basis and requests that it be stricken.  [ROA #221.]

Defendants set forth a verbatim statement of all their noticed issues at the top of the document, and then follow that with an undifferentiated set of undisputed facts.  [ROA #193.]  It is not possible to tell which facts correspond to which causes of action. 

Defendants then repeat two of the noticed issues and list some additional facts for them.  Again, the different facts for different causes of action are not identified.

This is not what CRC 3.1350 requires.

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

Looking at Defendants’ separate statement, it is impossible to determine whether they have presented evidence to meet their burden on each of the causes of action moved on.  In short, as presented, Defendants’ separate statement does not serve the purpose of a separate statement.  

The Separate Statement (and the opposing Separate Statement) are intended to permit the judge to determine quickly whether the motion is supported by sufficient undisputed facts. Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services (2020) 47 CA5th 532, 540, 261 CR3d 108, 113 (reversed on other grounds by Pollock v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, Inc. (2021) 11 C5th 918, 281 CR3d 498).   

The Court exercises its discretion to deny the Motion on the ground that Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of CRC 3.1350(d).  Code Civ. Proc § 427c(b)(1).  In light of that ruling, it is unnecessary for the Court to rule on Defendants’ evidentiary objections (numbered 1-52) to Plaintiff’s Declaration and the Meyerson Declaration.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.