Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00002093-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 16, 2024

05/17/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00002093-CU-PO-CTL DIAZ VS SUN COUNTRY BUILDERS INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant and Cross-Defendant RL Mays Construction Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant/Cross-Defendant has filed a single motion for summary judgment as to two separate complaints brought by two separate parties. Although Plaintiff Moises Diaz and Cross-Complainant Sun Country Builders, Inc. ignore this problem, the court will not. The court should not be expected to address two motions for summary judgment with a joint separate statement, joint memorandum (that does not address the different legal bases for addressing Plaintiff Moises Diaz's claims versus Defendant Sun Country Builders, Inc.'s indemnity and declaratory relief claims), and joint notice of motion. Permitting Defendant/Cross-Defendant to pursue this strategy would be unfair not only to this court, but also to Plaintiff and Cross-Complainant.

Moreover, although the notice of motion requests summary adjudication, Defendant/Cross-Defendant has failed to comply with California Rules of Court. (See CRC 3.1350, subd. (b) ['If summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.]; see also CRC 3.1350, subd. (d)(1).) Defendant/Cross-Defendant's motion is deniable on this ground alone. (See Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 865, 876 ['Trial courts should not hesitate to deny summary judgment motions when the moving party fails to draft a compliant separate statement . . . .'].) Finally, even if Defendant/Cross-Defendant had properly brought two separate motions and presented compliant separate statements and notices of motion, the court would be inclined to continue the hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h). In a case like this, which appears to center on a disputed factual issue concerning the cause of Plaintiff's trip, witness testimony (including the credibility of such witness testimony) will be paramount. Thus, at a minimum, Plaintiff's deposition should be taken before the court rules on a motion of this nature. As it appears the parties intend to stipulate to and request a trial continuance, denying Defendant/Cross-Defendant's motion without prejudice has the same practical effect as a continuance of the motion under subdivision (h).

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3090210  2