Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23STCV11023, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 23STCV11023    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 34

Defendants The Glenmark Hotel, Tania Georges, and North Brand LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is CONTINUED.

Background

            On May 16, 2023, Plaintiffs Sylvia Tashjian and Adam Tashjian (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Azul Hospitality Group LLC, The Glenmark Hotel, and Tania Georges arising from Plaintiffs’ wedding in Defendants The Glenmark Hotel’s facilities alleging causes of action for:

1.               Breach of Written and Oral Contract;

2.               Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;

3.               Breach of Implied Duty to Perform with Reasonable Care;

4.               Tortious Interference with Contract;

5.               Intentional Misrepresentation;

6.               Negligent Misrepresentation; and

7.               Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On October 5, 2023, Defendant Azul Hospitality Group LLC filed a General Denial to Plaintiffs’ complaint.

On October 10, 2023, Defendants The Glenmark Hotel and Tania Georges filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint.

On October 12, 2023, Defendant Azul Hospitality Group LLC filed an amended answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On October 16, 2023, the court granted the parties’ Stipulation to Set Aside and Vacate the entry of default against Defendant Azul Hospitality Group LLC.

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint naming Doe 1 as North Brand, LLC.

On October 30, 2023, the court granted the parties’ Stipulation to Set Aside and Vacate the entry of default against Defendants The Glenmark Hotel and Tania Georges.

On November 15, 2023, Defendant North Brand, LLC filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint.

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint naming Doe 2 as Ekim Consulting, Inc. 

On February 27, 2024, Defendant Ekim Consulting, Inc. filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint.

On February 27, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint naming Doe 3 as Azul Hospitality – Glendale, LLC.

On April 11, 2024, Defendant Azul Hospitality – Glendale, LLC filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint.

            On August 1, 2024, Defendant The Glenmark Hotel, Tania Georges, and North Brand LLC (“Moving Defendants”) filed this Motion for Summary Judgment.

            On September 25, 2024, the court granted Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to continue all matters.

            On December 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Moving Defendant’s motion. As of January 3, 2025, Moving Defendants filed a reply.

Legal Standard

“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. The motion may be made at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (1)(a).)

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That is because of the general principle that a party who seeks a court’s action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon. 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, citation omitted.)

“[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.” (Aguilar, supra, at p. 850; Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1474, [applying the summary judgment standards in Aguilar to motions for summary adjudication].)

“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, citation omitted.)

“The trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a fact finder to determine whose version is more likely true. Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court's evaluation of credibility.” (Binder, supra, at p. 840, citations omitted; 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”].)

Discussion

Evidentiary Objections

At this time, the court declines to rule on Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections found in opposition to Moving Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (q) (i.e., “[i]n granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion”).

Request for Judicial Notice

            Moving Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted. “A court may properly take judicial notice of its own records. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (e).)” (Garcia v. Sterling (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 21.)

CCP § 437c(h) – Continuance

            Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), provides that, “[i]f it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (h).)

            Plaintiffs request the court to deny Moving Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and grant  a continuance of its hearing pursuant to CCP section 437c(h). (Opp., at p. 10.) Plaintiffs contend that Plaintiffs’ wedding DJ was willing to provide a declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ opposition to Moving Defendants’ motion. (Ibid.; Sylvia Tashjian Decl., ¶ 48.) Plaintiff Sylvia Tashjian declares that the DJ’s declaration would provide an account of the DJ being instructed to turn off the music at 10:00 p.m. and again at 11:00 p.m. which would support Plaintiffs’ opposition. (Sylvia Tashjian Decl., ¶ 48.) Plaintiff Sylvia Tashjian further declares that on December 6, 2024, the wedding DJ’s mother passed away and prevented Plaintiffs from obtaining his declaration. (Ibid.)

            In light of the evidence that could be obtained through the DJ’s declaration, the court grants Plaintiffs’ request for a continuance. Additionally, the court notes that the words “may” and “shall” within the statute leaves little room for doubt that such continuances are to be liberally granted. (Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff's Dept. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 759, 765.)

Conclusion

Defendants The Glenmark Hotel, Tania Georges, and North Brand LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is CONTINUED to April 3, 2025 at 9:30 a.m.