Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STLC09822, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STLC09822 Hearing Date: November 13, 2023 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: November 13, 2023 TRIAL DATE: September
10, 2024
CASE: Stanford Neighborhood Association LLC v.
Miranda Logistics Enterprise, Inc.
CASE NO.: 20STLC09822 
MOTION
FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Stanford Neighborhood Association, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants/Cross-Complainants
Miranda Logistics Enterprise, Inc., Grit & Gravel Inc, and United Pacific
Waste
CASE
HISTORY:
·
11/24/20: Complaint filed
·
02/09/21: Cross-Complaint filed as to Stanford
Neighborhood Association, LLC; DGT Holdings LLC, and LA Catering Truck MFG,
Inc.
·
02/26/21: First Amended Complaint filed.
·
04/09/21: Cross-Complaint filed as to Grit &
Gravel Inc. and Miranda Logistics Enterprise, Inc.
·
07/01/21: Second Amended Complaint filed.
·
07/21/21: First Amended Cross Complaint filed as
to Stanford Neighborhood Association, LLC; DGT Holdings LLC, and LA Catering
Truck MFG, Inc.
·
08/09/21: First Amended Cross-Complaint filed as
to Grit & Gravel Inc. and Miranda Logistics Enterprise, Inc.
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an action for trespass, nuisance, negligence, and intentional
interference with contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to
comply with local zoning ordinances pertaining to a building materials salvage
yard which they operate.
Plaintiff moves for summary
adjudication as to whether Defendants had a duty to cease all operations at the
subject properties upon the issuance of Orders to Comply by the City of Los
Angeles.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.
DISCUSSION:
Plaintiff moves for summary
adjudication as to whether Defendants had a duty to cease all operations at the
properties that are the subject of this dispute upon the issuance of Orders to
Comply by the City of Los Angeles.
Legal Standard
The function of a motion for
summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an
opposing party can show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and, if
not, to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar
v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil
Procedure Section 437c(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.) “The function of the pleadings in
a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the
function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any
triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge
v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI
Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-82.)
As to each claim as framed by the
complaint, the plaintiff moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial
burden of proof by presenting proving each element of a cause of action. (Code
Civ Proc. § 437c(p)(1).) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of
the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence
in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39
Cal.4th 384, 389.) Once the plaintiff has met that burden, the burden shifts to
the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists
as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. (Code Civ. Proc. §
437c(p)(1).) To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing
the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v.
Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)
Identification of
Issue of Duty
Defendants object to this motion as
procedurally improper because it does not seek summary adjudication of whether
any duty was owed by Defendants to the Plaintiff. Code of Civil Procedure
section 437c subdivision (f)(1) sets forth the permissible bases for a motion
for summary adjudication:
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. A motion for
summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause
of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.
(Code Civ. Proc. §
437c subd. (f)(1) [emphasis added].) Plaintiff presents the issue for
adjudication on this motion as follows:
Did
Defendants have a duty to cease all operations at 6510, 6600, and 6622 Stanford
Avenue as of the issuing of Orders to Comply by the City of Los Angeles?
(Notice of Motion p.
1.) Plaintiff contends—in a single paragraph of legal argument—that Defendants
had a duty to comply with the City of Los Angeles’s orders. Plaintiff makes no
mention of any duty owed specifically to Plaintiff arising out of the mere
existence those orders. This defect is fatal to Plaintiff’s motion.
Existence of Duty
Even if the Court construed the duty
identified in the Notice of Motion as a duty owed to the Plaintiff by the
Defendants, Plaintiff’s own evidence does not demonstrate that Defendants were
obligated to cease all operations at the subject property. Plaintiff contends
that Defendants, who were using the property as a concrete recycling facility
were ordered to “cease all operations ‘immediately.’” (Memo of Ps. & As. p.
5:22-23.) However, the Notices of Code Violation on which Plaintiff bases its
argument plainly state that the operative order was to “Discontinue the use of
land for Concrete Recycling without
the required Certificate of Occupancy.” (Plaintiff’s Exh. 4 p.1.) The City also ordered that the owner either
demolish a steel and corrugated metal property fence built around the property,
or submit plans, obtain required permits, and permit inspection of the new
construction. (Id p. 2.) These orders do not, on their face,
require Defendants to cease all operations at the subject property. Rather, the
City presented the owner of the property with a choice to either obtain the
necessary permits to continue using the property in the same manner, or cease
using the property as a Concrete Recycling facility and demolish the fence. Construing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, these Notices
do not carry Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that Defendants had a duty to
cease all operations at the subject property.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff
is not entitled to summary adjudication of this issue of duty.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.
Moving
Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2023 ___________________________________
Theresa
M. Traber
Judge
of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the
tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day
before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It
should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still
conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you
have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you
should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an
order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.