Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2022-00013339-CU-PN-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 27, 2024

06/28/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Professional Negligence Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00013339-CU-PN-CTL GUASSAC VS SEVILLA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 01/29/2024

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ROA 98) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff asserts three causes of action against Defendants Edgar Sevilla III ('Attorney Sevilla') and Law Offices of Sevilla and Associates ('Law Offices') for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud and seeks summary judgment on his Complaint.

Burden of Proof Plaintiff '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 v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) The court previously determined Plaintiff's requests for admissions propounded on Law Offices were deemed admitted. (ROA 102, Pltf. Evid. at pp. 383-399; see also ROA 80.) 'A party is bound by admissions made in the course of discovery and, on motion for summary judgment, no further evidence of the matters so deemed admitted is required.' (Hejmadi v. Amfac, Inc. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 525, 553.) Procedurally Deficient Separate Statements Defendant Law Offices did not file any opposition papers. Failure to file a separate statement of material facts in opposition to a summary judgment motion 'may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court's discretion, for granting the motion.' (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(3).) Plaintiff's separate statement is procedurally defective. 'Citation to the evidence in support of each material fact must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.' (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1350(d)(3).) Many of Plaintiff's separate facts do not comply with this requirement, instead referring the court merely to 'Declaration of Carlos Guassac' or 'CDTFA bill' or 'emails' or 'text messages' without reference to exhibit number or bates number. The court has considered Plaintiff's separate statement to the extent it provides sufficient citation to the supporting evidence, including reference to the requests for admissions by number.

Sevilla's separate statement is procedurally defective. As to each material fact, 'the response must Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3080176  5 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GUASSAC VS SEVILLA [IMAGED]  37-2022-00013339-CU-PN-CTL unequivocally state whether that fact is 'disputed' or 'undisputed.'' (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1350(f)(2).) Sevilla has not complied with this requirement. As to many of the facts, Sevilla has responded 'YES' or 'NO,' which is ambiguous (e.g., 'NO' may be construed either as disagreement with the material fact, or as a concession there is no dispute; 'NO' appears to be used interchangeably with 'N/K,' presumably for no knowledge). Where it appears Sevilla is disputing a fact, he often fails to cite any supporting evidence or is making improper legal argument within the separate statement. (Sevilla Sep. Stmt. at ¶¶ 49, 69-70, 72, 74, 104, 123, 133.) In the absence of any supporting evidence, the court has construed these facts as undisputed. As to most of the facts, Sevilla has simply stated he has no personal knowledge of them. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 7-20, 22-47, 51-59, 61-62, 65, 67-68, 71, 73, 75-85, 87-99, 101-103, 105-116, 118-122, 124-132, 134-139.) The court has construed this as a concession by Sevilla that these facts are undisputed.

First Cause of Action – Legal Malpractice 'The elements of a cause of action in tort for professional negligence are (1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional's negligence.' (Budd v. Nixen (1971) 6 Cal.3d 195, 200.) Plaintiff has put forth prima facie evidence sufficient to support his professional negligence claim against both Defendants, including evidence of duty (Pltf. Sep. Stmt. ¶ 1), breach (Id. at ¶¶ 17-20, 22, 29-31, 38-41), causation (Id. at ¶¶ 22-23, 42, 58) and damages (¶¶ 20, 42, 56.) As noted above, Law Offices filed no opposition, and Sevilla has not met his burden to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact.

Second Cause of Action – Breach of Fiduciary Duty 'The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, and damages.' (Knutson v. Foster (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1075, 1094 (internal quotes omitted).) 'The relationship between an attorney and client is a fiduciary relationship of the very highest character.' (Clancy v. State Bar of Cal. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 140, 147.) Plaintiff has put forth prima facie evidence sufficient to support his breach of fiduciary claim against Defendants (Pltf. Sep. Stmt. at ¶¶ 1, 63-64, 68, 72-73, 77-84, 87-89.) Law Offices filed no opposition, and Sevilla has not met his burden to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact.

Third Cause of Action – Fraud 'The essential allegations of an action for fraud are a misrepresentation, knowledge of its falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance, and resulting damage.' (Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104, 109.) Plaintiff has put forth prima facie evidence sufficient to support his fraud claim (Pltf. Sep. Stmt. at ¶¶ 93-100, 104-115, 117-128, 132-133, 137, 139.) Law Offices filed no opposition, and Sevilla has not met his burden to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact. Law Offices filed no opposition, and Sevilla has not met his burden to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact.

Judgment Plaintiff is to submit a proposed Judgment within five (5) days.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3080176  5