Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2020-01159088, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Defendants Michael Victor Elam, Newport Center Outpatient Surgery Facilities, Inc., Doug Packer and Esthetica of Newport, PC dba Esthetica Center for Cosmetic Surgery’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary judgment as to the claims of Plaintiff Yongmei Wang is DENIED in its entirety.

Although MPs state they are seeking summary adjudication in the alternative to summary judgment, the court treats this motion as one for summary adjudication only.  MPs have not complied with the procedural requirements for a request for summary adjudication in the alternative.  Although the notice of motion does list the causes of action contained in the complaint, it does not specifically seek adjudication as to those causes of action.  Even if it did. MPs’ Separate Statement in support of the motion does not list the items to be adjudicated “verbatim” as listed (or not) in the notice of motion.  The Separate Statement filed with the moving papers consists of 51 “undisputed” fact.  (ROA #106.)  But none of those facts are separated out by cause of action, affirmative defense, claim of damage or defendant.  There’s no way to determine, from the face of the motion and separate statement, which defendant seeks adjudication of which cause of action. (See (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b).)

Defendants’ objection to Exhibit 3 of plaintiff’s compendium of exhibits is overruled.

Defendants shall give notice.