Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV03788, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 21STCV03788    Hearing Date: December 16, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Carl Shaff’s, Edwin Kawasaki’s, Steven Radell’s, William Miller’s, William Janson’s, Caj Brejtfus’s, and Lois Evans’s motion for summary adjudication of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 12th causes of action brought by Plaintiff Wesley Robbins in his first amended complaint is moot.

Defendants Carl Shaff (“Shaff”), Edwin Kawasaki (“Kawasaki”), Steven Radell (“Radell”), William Miller (“Miller”), William Janson (“Janson”), Caj Brejtfus (“Brejtfus”), and Lois Evans (“Evans”) (collectively “Moving Defendants”) move for summary adjudication of the 1st (civil conspiracy), 2nd (fraud), 4th (defamation), 5th (invasion of privacy), and 12th (intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”)) causes of action as asserted by Plaintiff Wesley Robbins (“Robbins”) (“Plaintiff”) in the first amended complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff. Moving Defendants move for summary adjudication as to the: (1) 1st cause of action because Plaintiff cannot prove any of the underlying torts he has pled against Moving Defendants; (2) 2nd cause of action because Plaintiff cannot establish the essential elements of misrepresentation, reliance, or damages; (3) 4th cause of action because Plaintiff cannot establish the essential elements of defamatory statement or damages; (4) 5th cause of action because Plaintiff cannot establish the essential elements of proprietary interest in a name used by Plaintiff, misuse of any such name, or damages; and (5) 12th cause of action because Plaintiff cannot establish the essential elements of outrageous statements or actions, intent, or damages.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)  The Motion, and supporting documents were filed on  August 15, 2022 and was originally scheduled on November 1, 2022.  As of November 1, 2022, Plaintiff had not filed an opposition. At the hearing Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant claimed that he had never received the motion, and counsel for the Moving Defendants argued to the Court that he did not believe the matter was moot, although the Court had previously granted a demurrer as to the First Amended Complaint that was the subject of the Motion.  The matter was continued to December 16, 2022.  Plaintiff filed an opposition of December 2, 2022, and Moving Defendants filed a Reply on December 9, 2022. 

Procedural violations

Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement as required by C.C.P. § 437c(b)(3) and C.R.C. Rule 3.1350(e).  Responses to material facts are improperly included in the memorandum of points and authorities.  The rules of court specifically described the required format and content of a separate statement in opposition.  Rule 3.1350(e). The opposition is 27 pages long.  This exceeds the 20 page limitation.  C.R.C. Rule 3.1113(d). The Court admonishes Plaintiff to review the California Rules of Court regarding page limitations.  In the future, the Court will not consider any portions of pleadings that exceed the page limitations.

Ruling

Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint (“SAC”) on November 14, 2022.  The SAC alleges different facts, and is not identical to the FAC as to the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 12^th causes of action, including the initial facts ¶¶ 1-150 which are incorporated into the subsequent causes of action.  (SAC ¶ 151, 181,   279, 351, 641.)    “Because there is but one complaint in a cvil action, the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.”  (State Compensation Ins. Fund v Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4^th 1124, 1130.)  Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication to 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 12th causes of action the FAC is moot.

Dated:  December _____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court