Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 20TRCV00671, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00671    Hearing Date: March 30, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿ 

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 March 30, 2023¿ 

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  20TRCV00671

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Vatche Cabayan v. Petri Entertainment, LLC, et al

¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Defendants, Petri Entertainment, LLC and Warner Davis

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff, Vatche Cabayan

¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        March 1, 2023  

¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication

¿ Tentative Rulings:                 (1)  Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is DENIED without prejudice to being re-field with Code-compliant original Ps and As.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On September 25, 2020, Vatche Cabayan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Petri Entertainment, LLC and Warner Davis (collectively “Defendants” for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) declaratory relief.

On December 22, 2020, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) money had and received, (4) failure to return deposit, and (5) declaratory relief.  Before the Court for a second time is the Defendants’ November 14, 2022 Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to the FAC.  The MSJ’s supporting brief begins on page 9 of the combined moving papers and continues to page 45, nearly double the maximum 20-page limit for an MSJ brief.  The Reply brief was 24 pages long, more than double the 10-page limit for reply briefs. 

II. DISCUSSION

On January 26, 2023, the Court conducted a hearing after issuing a written tentative ruling that addressed the oversized briefs, conditioning the continuance of the hearing (rather than an outright denial of the motion) on re-briefing the case.  At the hearing, the Court discussed the Defendants’ failure to comply with the maximum page limitations in Rule of Court 31113(d), discussing specific dates and requirements for re-submitting the original and reply briefs.  The Court thereafter issued a minute order requiring that Defendants file Code-compliant moving and supporting papers, correcting their errors.  Specifically, the Court ordered Defendants to correct the 96 evidentiary objections to Plaintiff’s evidence in opposition to the Motion, none of which complied with CRC 3.1454(b). Additionally, the Court directed defendants to correct the egregious page limit violations of CRC 3.1113(d) as to both the moving brief and the reply brief.  The Court issued the following briefing schedule: (1) Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment is due on or before February 16, 2023; (2) Opposition to Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment is due on or before by March 9, 2023; (3) Reply to Opposition of Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment is due on or before March 23, 2023; (4) Any and all supporting documents in support of Motion for Summary Judgment are due on or before March 9, 2023.

Although the Court can see that a new opposition has been filed, as well as a new reply brief that comports with the 10-page maximum limit, Defendants failed to comply with the Court’s order that the original moving papers be re-filed with a Code-compliant memorandum of points and authorities by February 16, 2023.   In fact, no documents of any nature were filed during the month of February 2023 in this case.  The Court has not and will not read a 36-page MSJ brief, especially after calling the issue to the moving party’s attention and requiring that a replacement brief be submitted as a condition of the Court continuing the hearing.  Allowing one party to file substantially oversized briefs would treat all other litigants unfairly, litigants who abide by the page limitations rules (in cases where the issues and amount in controversy may be more momentous or less substantial than those presented in this case), and who follow directives given in open court and in minute orders following the hearing.  Because the MSJ’s original moving papers were not in conformity with the Rules of Court and because Defendants failed to abide by the Court’s directive as a condition of the Court continuing the hearing, the Court in the exercise of its discretion denies the MSJ without prejudice.   If Defendants elect to re-file their MSJ, the moving papers shall be in compliance with the page limit and other mandatory filing requirements for litigants in this State.