Judge Shirley K. Watkins, Case 20STCV16533 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 20STCV16533, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

Case Number: 20STCV16533 Hearing Date: August 19, 2022 Dept: T

[TENTATIVE] RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY DEFENDANTS HART AND JACKSON

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE BY DEFENDANT HART:

1. GRANTED but not as to any hearsay contained within it.

2. DENIED.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE BY PLAINTIFF SABBAG:

1-3, 5-11: DENIED.

4: GRANTED but not as to any hearsay contained within it.

RULINGS:

Objections by Hart filed 8/12/2022 to Decl. of Sabbag - there is a separate order ruling on these objections.

Objections by Hart filed 8/12/2022 to Decl. of Williams - there is a separate order ruling on these objections.

Objections by Jackson filed 8/12/2022 to Decl. of Sabbag - there is a separate order ruling on these objections.

Objections by Hart filed 8/12/2022 to plaintiff's RJN - there is a separate order ruling on these objections.

Objection by Jackson filed 8/12/2022 to Opposition - Denied/Overruled. The court has the discretion to consider late filed opposition to the motions. The court continued the hearing and allowed defendant Jackson time to file a reply. Counsel for Jackson was given the opportunity to select the amount of time he needed to file a reply. Counsel agreed to the schedule that is set forth in the court record. There is no prejudice to consideration of the late filed evidence.

Objections by Jackson filed 8/17/2022 to RJN - there is a separate order ruling on these objections.

Objections by Jackson filed 8/17/2022 to Decl. of Williams - there is a separate order ruling on these objections.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT HART:

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. There is a triable issue of material fact as to whether defendant Hart knew there was a camera recording based upon the declaration of plaintiff at paragraphs 22 and 23, and the video itself. According to plaintiff's declaration (at para. 22), defendant Hart moved or adjusted the mirror in his bedroom prior to "us having sex." She also states (at para. 23) "The Video appears to indicate that the device that recorded the Video was placed in front of the bed in Hart's bedroom where we were having sex and that the recording device seemed to be reflecting off the mirror in Hart's bedroom; the same mirror I observed Hart move/adjust just prior to us engaging in intercourse." This creates a reasonable inference as to whether defendant Hart knew there was a camera pointing toward the mirror and whether the adjustment of the mirror was for purposes of recording, or whether he knew there was a camera there. This evidence conflicts with the declaration of Hart that he did not know about the camera or recording and was not involved in the recording. He also does not deny that he adjusted the mirror. It is not the purview of the court in this motion to weigh the evidence and determine whether the declaration of plaintiff is true or not, but only whether the trier of fact should make that decision.

In deciding a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party, drawing "all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. [Citations omitted.]" Weiss v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864. (Emphasis added.) Declarations and other evidence offered in support of a motion for summary judgment are strictly construed, while declarations and evidence offered in opposition to the motion are liberally construed. D’Amico v. Bd. of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 20; Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 64. The Court cannot weigh the credibility of witnesses or weigh other evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840. "The trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a fact finder to determine whose version is more likely true." Weiss, supra, 9 Cal.5th at 864.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY DEFENDANT HART:

Issue No. 1: DENIED for the reasons set forth in the analysis on the MSJ, above.

Issue No. 2: GRANTED. On the grounds set forth in the moving papers, there is no triable issue of material fact.

Issue No. 3: DENIED for the reasons set forth in the analysis on the MSJ, above.

Issue No. 4: DENIED for the reasons set forth in the analysis on the MSJ, above.

Issue No. 5: DENIED for the reasons set forth in the analysis on the MSJ, above.

Issue No. 6: DENIED for the reasons set forth in the analysis on the MSJ, above.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANT JACKSON:

GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. For the reasons as set forth in the moving papers, plaintiff's evidence establishes no triable issues of material fact as to defendant Jackson.

IT IS SO ORDERED. CLERK OF THE COURT TO GIVE NOTICE.