Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV46412, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV46412 Hearing Date: March 1, 2023 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion for Summary Judgment or in the
Alternative for Summary Adjudication
Moving Party: Gregory
Walston and Walston & Associates
Resp. Party: None
The Motion for Summary Judgment or in
the Alternative for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED. Summary judgment of
Sheehan et al.’s Cross-Complaint is GRANTED in favor of Walston et al.
BACKGROUND:
On April 23, 2021,
Plaintiffs Noah Meiner, Lennifer Hilliard, and Sandra Wilson (“Meiner et al.”)
filed their Complaint against Defendants Robin Amelia Sheehan, Brian Morgan
Heit, Matthew Jacob Feaver, and Heit Law Group (“Sheehan et al.”). The
underlying issue regards the alleged malpractice (and related claims) of
Sheehan et al. in Meiner et al.’s prior lawsuit on a specific e-spam law.
On January 25, 2022,
Sheehan et al. filed: (1) Answer to Meiner et al.’s Complaint; and (2)
Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Gregory Walston and Walston &
Associates (“Walston et al.”).
On January 26, 2022,
Meiner et al. amended their Complaint to substitute Doe 1 with ABG Law PC and
Doe 2 with Adept Legal Counsel PC.
On April 21, 2022,
Walston et al. filed: (1) Answer to Sheehan et al.’s Cross-Complaint; and (2)
Cross-Complaint against General Star Insurance Company (actual name General
Star Indemnity Company), Robin Amelia Sheehan, Jay Fink, Noah Meiner, Lennifer
Hilliard, and Sandra Wilson. (On August 3, 2022, the Court sustained Meiner et
al.’s Demurrer to the first amended version of this Cross-Complaint.)
On July 22, 2022,
Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant General Star Indemnity Company (“General
Star”) filed its Cross-Complaint against Meiner et al., Sheehan et al., and
Walston et al.
On September 21,
2022, Meiner et al. filed their Answer to General Star’s Cross-Complaint.
On September 28,
2022, the Court granted General Star’s Motion for Order to Sever General Star’s
Cross-Complaint and Walston et al.’s First Amended Cross-Complaint.
On November 17, 2022,
Walston et al. filed their Answer to General Star’s Cross-Complaint.
On December 9, 2022,
Walston et al. filed their Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative
for Summary Adjudication (“Motion”). Walston et al. concurrently filed: (1)
Memorandum of Points and Authorities; (2) Separate Statement; (3) Declaration
of Gregory S. Walston; and (4) Proofs of Service.
On February 3, 2023,
the Court granted Walston et al.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith
Settlement.
No opposition or
other response has been filed to the Motion.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal Standard
“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears
the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and
that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.] There is a triable issue
of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier
of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion
in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” ¿(Aguilar v. Atl.
Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)
“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears
an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue
of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift,
and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own
to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”¿(Id.;
Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1474
[summary judgment standards held by Aguilar apply to summary
adjudication motions].)
In line with Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield
Company, “[o]n a motion for summary adjudication, the trial court has no
discretion to exercise. If a triable issue of material fact exists as to the
challenged causes of action, the motion must be denied. If there is no triable
issue of fact, the motion must be granted.” (Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise
Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 309, 320.)
“On a summary judgment motion, the court must
therefore consider what inferences favoring the opposing party a factfinder could
reasonably draw from the evidence. While viewing the evidence in this manner,
the court must bear in mind that its primary function is to identify issues
rather than to determine issues. Only when the inferences are
indisputable may the court decide the issues as a matter of law. If the
evidence is in conflict, the factual issues must be resolved by trial.” (Binder
v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839 [cleaned
up].)
Further, “the trial court may not weigh the
evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine whose version is more
likely true. Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court's evaluation of
credibility.” (Id. at p. 840 [cleaned up]; see also Weiss v.
People ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [“Courts deciding motions for summary
judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead
view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of that party”].)
II.
Discussion
Sheehan et
al.’s Cross-Complaint against Walston et al. lists causes of action for
contribution, implied indemnity, and declaratory relief of express indemnity.
Walston
et al. moves the Court to grant summary judgment or adjudication on Sheehan et
al.’s Cross-Complaint. (Motion, pp. 1:2–14.)
Since
Walston et al. filed this Motion, the Court granted Walston et al.’s
Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.
“A determination by the
court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint
tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling
tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or
comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).)
Sheehan et al. has not
opposed the Motion or provided any reason why they would not be barred from the
claims made in their Cross-Complaint.
The Court GRANTS the
summary judgment of Sheehan et al.’s Cross-Complaint in favor of Walston et al.
III. Conclusion
The Motion for Summary Judgment or
in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED. Summary judgment of Sheehan
et al.’s Cross-Complaint is GRANTED in favor of Walston et al.