Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 21STCV41161, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV41161, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41161 Hearing Date: December 12, 2024 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: December 12, 2024 TRIAL DATE: April 15, 2025

CASE: Erika Z. Miguel Menedez v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV41161

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendants City of Los Angeles, Chief Michel Moore, Sergeant Stephen McClean, and Officers Matthew Clark, Albert Vazquez, Robert Resurreccion Edric Dapello, Mike Maillet, and Mike Hernandez

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Erika Z. Miguel Menendez

CASE HISTORY:

· 11/08/21: Complaint filed.

· 11/12/21: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a civil rights and personal injury action. Plaintiff alleges that she was attacked by Los Angeles Police Department officers while attending celebrations at the Staples Center following the Los Angeles Lakers’ victory in the 2020 NBA Championship.

Defendants move for summary judgment, or, in the alternative summary adjudication of all causes of action.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants move for summary judgment, or, in the alternative summary adjudication of all causes of action.

In bringing a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the supporting papers must include “a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(1).) “The requirement of a separate statement from the moving party and a responding statement from the party opposing summary judgment serves two functions: to give the parties notice of the material facts at issue in the motion and to permit the trial court to focus on whether those facts are truly undisputed.” (Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1210.) On a motion which seeks summary adjudication, whether separately or in the alternative, “the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1350(b) [emphasis added].) Further, the moving party seeking summary adjudication must “tie each ‘undisputed material fact’ to the particular claim, defense or issue sought to be adjudicated.” (Weil & Brown et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) § 10:96.5, p. 10-43 [discussing requirement os Rule 3.1350(b)].) Subsection (h) of Rule 3.1350 sets forth the format required for a Separate Statement, including a requirement that the theory on which summary adjudication of an issue is sought be set forth as a header for the two-column table. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1350(b).)

Defendants’ motion complies with none of these requirements. The separate statement does not identify the causes of action by number, does not set forth the issues to be adjudicated separately ahead of each section of the Separate Statement as raised in the notice of motion, and does not state the theory under which summary adjudication is sought, as reflected in the format described in the Rules of Court. Nor does the Separate Statement make any effort to connect the allegedly undisputed facts to the individual claims that Defendants seek to have adjudicated. Defendants’ moving papers demonstrate the materiality of this defect, as they rely on select material facts in support of their attacks on various causes of action. (See, e.g., Memo of Points & Authorities p.10:5-15; p.11:19-21.) Defendants’ motion thus invites the Court to scour the record and the copious supporting materials in search of the proverbial needles in the haystack supporting or challenging each cause of action. Further still, despite Plaintiff having raised this objection in both her original opposition, filed August 20, 2024, and her amended opposition, filed November 27, 2024, Defendants have made no attempt even to respond to this objection in either their original or their supplemental reply.

The failure to provide a compliant separate statement is, in the Court’s discretion, grounds for denial of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(1).) Moreover, appellate precedent has consistently encouraged trial courts to require strict compliance with the requirements for separate statements. (United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 335 [superseded by statute on other grounds]; North Coast Business Park v. Nielsen Construction Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 22, 30-32.) As the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District bluntly stated in December of 2023, “[t]rial courts should not hesitate to deny summary judgment motions when the moving party fails to draft a compliant separate statement.” (Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 865, 876.) The Court will heed that exhortation.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2024 ___________________________________

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.