Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV35944, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35944    Hearing Date: June 10, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     June 10, 2025             TRIAL DATE: July 22, 2025

CASE:                         Jon Yamashita v. State of California, Bureau of Automotive Repair

CASE NO.:                 22STCV35944           

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair (Erroneously sued as State of California, Bureau of Automotive Repair)

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Jon Yamashita

CASE HISTORY:

·         11/14/22: Complaint filed.

·         03/29/24: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an employment discrimination action. Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to an extremely hostile and openly racist work environment.

Defendant moves for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of all causes of action.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant moves 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.) This separate statement must “separately” identify “[e]ach supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute with respect to the cause of action” – that is, each cause of action – “that is the subject of the motion.” (Cal Rules of Court Rule 3.1350(d)(1)(B).) Rather than follow this basic procedural rule, Defendant has instead elected to list 69 material facts in support of its challenge to the first cause of action, and then, for the remaining claims, incorporate selected material facts “by reference” and add further material facts to that respective claim. (See generally Defendant’s Separate Statement.)

By failing to follow Rule 3.1350(d), Defendant’s separate statement does not serve either of the essential functions of a separate statement. Rather than give fair notice to the parties and to the Court of the facts which Defendant claims are material, Defendant’s Separate Statement obfuscates that information in a context where the summary judgment analysis is highly fact specific. That Plaintiff did not object to the Separate Statement in preparing his opposition is of no consequence. A Separate Statement such as this which fails to properly set forth the facts that are truly germane to each of the many disparate issues raised by the motion cannot be fairly said to put Plaintiffs on notice of the material facts at issue, and certainly does not permit this Court to focus on whether the facts are truly undisputed. The failure to provide a separate statement is, in the Court’s discretion, grounds for denial of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(1).)

Defendant’s reply papers, although not themselves a basis to deny the motion, demonstrate a continued pattern of noncompliance with procedural rules. Defendant has, for example, filed a “Response to Plaintiff’s Additional Material Facts” that is not authorized either in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Rules of Court. Indeed, the recent amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, effective on January 1 of this year, expressly prohibits exactly this type of filing. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c (b)(4).) Moreover, Defendant submitted, with its reply, over 50 pages of objections to Plaintiff’s evidence in support of the motion. Certainly, given the extent of the evidence offered by Plaintiff in opposition to this motion, some greater volume of objections is inescapable. However, many of Defendant’s objections do not bear up under any degree of scrutiny. As merely one example, Defendant, in response to many examples of deposition testimony reporting the use of a racial slur — a statement which clearly is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted — objected to the recitation of that slur as “hearsay.” (See, e.g., Defendant’s objections p. 19.) “Can this be serious? Can counsel see themselves rising at trial with those objections while plaintiff is testifying before a jury?” (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 257.)

Defendant has disregarded the basic procedural rules and statutes governing litigation in this State. As an arm of the same State of which this Court is a part, Defendant is or should be in possession of ample time, resources, and personnel to prepare and present its motions and arguments in compliance with those requirements—from which it is not excused merely by its nature as a government entity.

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 has bluntly stated, “[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.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  June 10, 2025                         ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.