Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV39883, Date: 2023-10-20 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: 20STCV39883    Hearing Date: October 20, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Defendants Mayflower Medical Group, Inc., and Rebecca Lubiano       

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff Anita Castro

Motion for Summary Adjudication

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.[1]

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

The court declines to rule on defendants Mayflower Medical Group, Inc., and Rebecca Lubiano’s evidentiary objections, filed on October 13, 2023, because they are directed to evidence that is not material to the disposition of this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).)

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

Defendants Mayflower Medical Group, Inc., and Rebecca Lubiano (“Defendants”) move the court for an order granting their motion for summary adjudication as to the claim for economic damages made by plaintiff Anita Castro (“Plaintiff”) in her First Amended Complaint. 

The court finds that Defendants have not met their burden to show that they are entitled to an order granting summary adjudication on the issue of Plaintiff’s claim for economic damages because that is not a proper issue for summary adjudication.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

“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, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)  “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1), does not permit summary adjudication of a single item of compensatory damage which does not dispose of an entire cause of action.”  (DeCastro West Chodorow & Burns, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 410, 422.)  Instead, a motion for summary adjudication as to damages is limited to a claim for punitive damages.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1); Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 242 [“The 1990 amendment limited summary adjudication motions to a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for punitive damages, or an issue of duty”] [emphasis added].)

The court notes that, “if a defendant can establish the lack of any of the elements of a cause of action, including the element of causation or damage, then a motion for summary adjudication may be appropriate under other language in subdivision (f)(1) of section 437c.”  (DeCastro West Chodorow & Burns, Inc., supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 419, n. 3.)  However, here, Defendants (1) have stated in their notice of motion that “Plaintiff’s claim for economic damages fails as a matter of law[,]” and have not stated that Plaintiffs cannot establish the element of damages as to any or each of her 14 causes of action, and (2) have stated in their motion that Plaintiff is not entitled “to recover any economic damages in this action[,]” “even if Plaintiff were to prevail on any of her claims against Defendants[.]”  (Notice of Mot., p. 2:13-14 [emphasis added]; Mot., p. 2:9-11 [emphasis added].)  Thus, Defendants’ moving papers make clear that they are not challenging the element of damages as to any of her 14 causes of action and are instead moving for summary adjudication on the sole issue of economic damages.[2]  As set forth above, this is not a proper issue for summary adjudication.    

The court therefore denies Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s claim for economic damages.

ORDER

The court denies defendants Mayflower Medical Group, Inc., and Rebecca Lubiano’s motion for summary adjudication.

The court orders plaintiff Anita Castro to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 20, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court