Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV43019, Date: 2024-11-07 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: 20STCV43019    Hearing Date: November 7, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Eric Jones

Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication

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

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

The court does not rule on plaintiff Eric Jones’s amended evidentiary objections, filed on October 30, 2024, because they are directed to evidence that is not material to the court’s 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

Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”) filed the pending motion on June 17, 2024, moving the court for an order granting summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication, in its favor and against plaintiff Eric Jones (“Plaintiff”).

The court finds that Defendant has not met its burden to show that each cause of action alleged by Plaintiff has no merit because Defendant’s memorandum of points and authorities does not set forth the evidence on which Defendant relies.  

“The memorandum [of points and authorities] must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1113, subd. (b) [emphasis added].)  Further, “[a]ll references to exhibits or declarations in supporting or opposing papers must reference the number or letter of the exhibit, the specific page, and, if applicable, the paragraph or line number.”  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1113, subd. (k).)  Here, Defendant’s supporting memorandum of points and authorities does not set forth the evidence on which Defendant relies as required.  Instead, Defendant appears to have inadvertently submitted an incomplete version of the motion that includes only incomplete citations to its separate statement.  (Memo., pp. 7:12, 7:16, 8:6, 8:26, 9:3, 0:15, 9:25, 10:3, 10:9, 10:13, 10:18, 10:22, 10:23, 11:2, 11:17, 11:24, 12:4, 12:9, 12:16, 12:20, 12:25, 13:4, 13:11, 13:16, 20:3, 20:26, 21:4, 22:12, 23:3.) 

The court finds that Defendant’s failure to cite to the evidence (including as set forth in the separate statement) is prejudicial and has deprived the court, and Plaintiff, of the ability to determine whether Defendant has produced evidence to show that Plaintiff cannot establish essential elements of each cause of action.  (Opp., p. 1:2-9 [asserting that Defendant’s moving papers are defective and therefore prejudicial].)  For example, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s determination of Plaintiff’s “benefit-ending-date” lacked animus because the employee who facilitated that function had no knowledge of Plaintiff’s alleged protected characteristics.  (Mot., pp. 12:21-13:4.)  But because Defendant has not cited evidence in support of its motion, the court and Plaintiff cannot determine whether Defendant has submitted competent evidence to support this argument.  Moreover, Defendant’s compendium of evidence consists of over 400 pages of evidence, and the court is not required to search the record to identify the evidence in support of Defendant’s contentions.  (Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 933 [noting that the memorandum had no statement of the facts and “no identification of the specific evidence or arguments on which their challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence rely”], 934 [“In the face of these omissions, the trial court had no obligation to undertake its own search of the record ‘backwards and forwards to try to figure out how the law applies to the facts’ of the case”].)

Finally, although the court acknowledges that Defendant filed a “Notice of Errata re: Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively Summary Adjudication” on October 29, 2024, which includes correct and complete citations to the record, Defendant served that memorandum on Plaintiff on October 29, 2024, and therefore did not provide Plaintiff with 75-days’ notice of the moving papers as required.  (Oct. 29, 2024 Notice of Errata, p. 30 [proof of electronic service on October 29, 2024]; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(2) [“Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing”].)

Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Defendant’s memorandum of points and authorities is procedurally defective and therefore insufficient to establish that Defendant has met its burden to show that each cause of action has no merit. 

The court therefore denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.

ORDER

            The court denies defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.

The court orders plaintiff Eric Jones  to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  November 7, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court