Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00012569-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 14, 2023

09/15/2023  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  Wrongful Termination Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00012569-CU-WT-CTL REYES VS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants United Parcel Service, Inc. and Michael MacPherson's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication, is DENIED without prejudice.

The California Rules of Court mandate that an opening memorandum supporting a motion for summary judgment cannot exceed 20 pages. (CRC 3.113, subd. (d).) If an opening memorandum exceeds 20 pages without prior court permission, it 'must be filed and considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper.' (CRC 3.113, subds. (e), (g).) The court has discretion to refuse to consider late filed papers.

(CRC 3.1300, subd. (d).) Here, Defendants' opening brief is 25 pages, not including the caption page, notice of motion, exhibits, declarations, attachments, table of contents, table of authorities, and proof of service. Due to the factually and legally complex nature of Defendants' motion, the court is not inclined to simply ignore the excess five pages, nor attempt to parse out the arguments related to the causes of action Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed after Defendants filed the motion. Without a supporting memorandum, the court cannot consider Defendants' motion. As such, it is denied without prejudice on procedural grounds.

The court notes that both parties have demonstrated a remarkable disregard for motion filing and timing requirements. Plaintiff failed to serve and file his opposition papers 'not less than 14 days preceding the noticed or continued date of hearing' of September 15, 2023. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1); ROA #96 [opposition papers filed and served on September 7, 2023].) In addition to filing an oversized memorandum, Defendants also failed to serve and file their reply papers 'not less than five days preceding the notice or continued date of hearing.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(4); ROA #104 [reply papers filed and served on September 13, 2023].) Both parties are admonished to comply with required filing and timing requirements.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2978027  11