Judge Michael T. Smyth, Case Number: 37-2017-00003171-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael T. Smyth, Case: 37-2017-00003171-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024 09:00:00 AM C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2017-00003171-CU-BC-CTL KALTHIA ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION LLC VS CHITTURI [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 11/21/2023

Defendant Raghudhar Maddali Motion for Summary Judgment, joined by Defendant Swathi Chitturi, is DENIED. All requests for judicial notice are granted. (ROAs 201, 223.) - Initial Matter of Joinder Defendant Chitturi filed a joinder in the motion for summary judgment. (ROA 220.) A party generally may not obtain summary judgment in their favor by joining another party's motion for summary judgment.

'When a party merely joins in a motion for summary judgment without presenting its own evidence, the party fails to establish the necessary factual foundation to support the motion.' (Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 654, 661; see also Village Nurseries, L.P. v. Greenbaum (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 26, 46-47 [each defendant must satisfy Code of Civil Procedure section 437c and file their own separate statement].) But Plaintiff has not objected to Defendant Chitturi's joinder in Defendant Maddali's Motion for Summary Judgment. Additionally, in Barak and Village Nurseries, the facts were such that the different defendants would have had to prove different facts, but here all parties are bound by the same facts with respect to the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the court's ruling applies to both Defendants.

- Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants Maddali and Chitturi argue that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff Kalthia Engineering and Construction LLC argues that the delayed discovery rule applies because it did not discover that Defendants claimed not to be personal guarantors until the litigation was initiated. The court agrees with Plaintiff. Based on the facts-even largely undisputed facts-there is still a triable controversy as to whether and when Plaintiff should have reasonably discovered the mistake and triggered the timeline for filing its action.

The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question; 'no more is called for.' (Id. at 851.) The moving party must show that the undisputed facts, when applied to the issues framed by the pleadings, entitle the moving party to judgment. (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 66.) If the moving party carries this burden, it causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subject to its own burden of production to make a prima facie showing that a triable issue of material facts exists. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 850.) Courts must view the evidence and inferences 'in the light most favorable to the opposing party.' (Id. at 843.) Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3092076 1 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: KALTHIA ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION LLC VS CHITTURI 37-2017-00003171-CU-BC-CTL 'Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d) sets forth a three-year statute of limitations for '[a]n action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake.' That provision further states that '[t]he cause of action in that case is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.'' (Krolikowski v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 537, 557, fn. 10.) Discovery can be based on either actual or inquiry notice. (Id. at 561-562.) Inquiry notice causes a claim to accrue 'if a party became aware of facts that would make a reasonably prudent person suspicious, the party had a duty to investigate further, and is charged with knowledge of matters which would have been revealed by such an investigation.' (Ibid.) 'When a plaintiff reasonably should have discovered facts for the purposes of the . . . delayed discovery rule is generally a question of fact, properly decided as a matter of law only if the evidence . . . can support only one reasonable conclusion.' (Alexander v. Exxon Mobil (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1252 [cleaned up].) In other words, it is not enough that there are undisputed facts. Those facts must also support only one reasonable conclusion, entitling the moving party to summary judgment.

Here, even assuming Defendant Maddali is correct that most of the facts are undisputed, they do not entitle Defendants to judgment as a matter of law because different factfinders could come to different conclusions based on those facts regarding the reasonability of Plaintiff's failure to discover the guaranty mistake until long after the agreements had been entered.

Importantly, the Fourth District considered and rejected many of Plaintiff's arguments. Even if its opinion was in the context of a demurrer, Defendant has not introduced anything substantially new that would alter the discussion set forth in pages 23-27 of the opinion. (See ROA 174, Remittitur, Opinion at 23-27; see id. at 23 ['These allegations, if proven, are sufficient to establish when and how Kalthia discovered the mistake, and could support a finding that Kalthia was not aware of facts that reasonably should have led to earlier discovery.'].) The motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3092076 1