Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV31868, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV31868    Hearing Date: March 29, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Defendants Pine Enterprises, LLC and Tony Chang

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff Ricardo Flores

Motion for Summary Adjudication

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

The court declines to rule on plaintiff Ricardo Flores’s evidentiary objections, filed on March 15, 2023, because they are directed to evidence that is not material to the court’s disposition of this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).)  

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court denies defendants Pine Enterprises, LLC and Tony Chang’s request for judicial notice, filed on March 22, 2023, because the matters to be judicially noticed are not relevant to material issues presented by this motion.  (Malek Media Group, LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825.)

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.)  A defendant or cross-defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)  “Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)  “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.”  (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)  “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”  (Id. at p. 467; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On September 7, 2022, defendants Pine Enterprises, LLC and Tony Chang (“Defendants”) filed the pending Motion for Summary Adjudication in their favor and against plaintiff Ricardo Flores (“Plaintiff”).

Defendants’ Notice of Motion states that it “is made on the grounds that there is no triable issue of material fact, and that the evidence establishes one or more elements of Plaintiff’s cause of action in question cannot be established or that every element of at least one affirmative defense asserted by Defendants is established, and therefore Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication.”  (Notice of Mot., p. 2:1-4.)  The Notice does not state the causes of action that are the subject of this motion.  Plaintiff notes this defect in his opposition, contending that Defendants’ motion is unclear.  (Opp., p. 1:9-13.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty . . . .”  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350, subdivision (b) states, in relevant part:  “If summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.”

The court finds that Defendants have not complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350.  First, as set forth above, the notice of motion does not state the specific causes of action as to which summary adjudication is sought.  Second, Defendants’ Separate Statement, consisting of 12 material facts, does not repeat the challenged causes of action verbatim.  Finally, although not a violation of the California Rules of Court, the court also notes that the supporting papers do not specify the causes of action as to which Defendants move for summary adjudication.  Defendants’ moving papers state that their motion “disposes of seven causes of action in their entirety” and mention various causes of action, but their reply papers state that they are moving for summary adjudication as to eight causes of action.  (Mot., pp. 7:5-6, 3:25-4:2; Reply, p. 2:7-8.)  While the California Rules of Court do not require Defendants to separately state each cause of action that is the subject of the motion in their supporting memorandum of points and authorities, the court notes that this discrepancy underscores Defendants’ failure to properly put Plaintiff on notice of the grounds of their motion for summary adjudication.

The court has the discretion to deny a motion for summary judgment or adjudication based on the failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350.  (Holt v. Brock (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 611, 619.)  The court exercises its discretion to deny Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication because Defendants failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350, subdivision (b).

ORDER

The court denies defendants Pine Enterprise, LLC and Tony Chang’s motion for summary adjudication.

The court orders plaintiff Ricardo Flores to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 29, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court