Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 23STCV24766, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV24766, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24766 Hearing Date: April 24, 2025 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: April 24, 2025 TRIAL DATE: January 6, 2026

CASE: David Oday, et al. v. 118 Wadsworth Avenue Homeowners Association, et al.

CASE NO.: 23STCV24766

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendants 118 Wadsworth Avenue Homeowners Association and Carl Kubitz

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs David Oday and Lakota Patrick Ford

CASE HISTORY:

· 10/11/23: Complaint filed.

· 01/10/24: First Amended Complaint filed.

· 03/01/24: Cross-Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a breach of contract and habitability defect action. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants refused to replace the roof of Plaintiff’s condominium, causing extensive water damage and mold throughout the unit. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants improperly issued special assessments in violation of the operative covenants, conditions, and restrictions on the property and retaliated against Plaintiffs for raising these issues.

Defendants move for summary adjudication of the second, third, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action and for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants move for summary adjudication of the second, third, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action and for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim.

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, Defendants have instead listed the seven issues raised in their motion and then listed 62 purportedly material facts, without distinction as to any of the seven issues. (See generally Defendants’ Separate Statement.)

By failing to follow Rule 3.1350(d), Defendants’ separate statement does not serve either of the essential functions of a separate statement. First, each of the issues raised by Defendants requires application of distinct legal standards with little overlap. For example, to assert a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must show that (1) there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties; (2) there was a breach of that relationship; and (3) there were any damages caused by that breach. (See Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1405.) The evaluation of this claim on its face bears little connection to the viability of claims such as Plaintiffs’ Housing Discrimination claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, which is concerned with whether Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs’ use of their dwelling based on discrimination because of their sexual orientation. (Gov. Code § 12955(k).) Defendants’ own memorandum of points and authorities handily demonstrates this fact, as Defendants’ arguments reference different “material facts” with respect to different causes of action with wholly disparate elements. (Compare Memorandum p.15:9-17 [negligence] with p.16:16-25 [Unruh Act].) In some cases, Defendants neglect to cite evidence or material facts whatsoever, such as in their negligence argument where Defendants assert, without citation, that “reimbursement assessments” were issued solely against Plaintiffs’ unit based on a violation of the property CC&Rs, and “represent[] a very small fraction of the total repair costs and reserve deficit.” (Memorandum p. 15:19-21.) “This is the Golden Rule of Summary Adjudication: if it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.” (United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 337 [italics in original].)

A Separate Statement such as this which fails to specify 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 pertinent facts are truly undisputed. Instead, both Plaintiffs and the Court are forced to guess which facts are truly material, without the guidance from Defendants which should have been provided. 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).) 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 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.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 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.

Website by Triangulus