Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV06425, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV06425    Hearing Date: October 13, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff Gerasim Hayrapetyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Ryobi Technologies, Inc.; One World Technologies, Inc.; Techtronic Industries, Co., Ltd.; Techtronic Industries, North America, Inc.; Tasia Hayrapetyan; and Does 1 to 60 arising from injuries that Plaintiff allegedly sustained using a 10-inch Sliding Miter Saw, TSS100LI (the “Subject Saw”). The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) products liability; and (2) general negligence. The complaint prays for compensatory damages according to proof and does not seek punitive damages.

On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to include a prayer for punitive damages. On December 23, 2021, the Court issued a minute order as to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. The Court’s minute order states that: (1) the Court’s tentative ruling was posted online and in open court for the parties to review; (2) the matter was not called for hearing; and (3) there were no appearances and no submissions by or for either side. (December 23, 2021 Minute Order.) The Court placed the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend off calendar and indicated that notice was not required.

On August 1, 2023, Defendants Ryobi Technologies, Inc., One World Technologies, Inc., and Techtronic Industries North America, Inc. (“Moving Defendants”) filed a motion for an order granting summary adjudication in its favor against Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. The motion is brought on the grounds that Plaintiff makes a claim for punitive damages in his amended complaint.

As explained below, however, despite Moving Defendants contention that the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, there is no record in the court file indicating leave to amend was granted. Moreover, even if leave to amend was granted, an amended complaint was not filed to become the operative pleading in this action.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

“A party may move for summary adjudication as to . . . one or more claims for damages . . . if the party contends that . . . there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f)(1).) “Motions for summary adjudication are procedurally identical to motions for summary judgment.” (Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1290.) “Summary adjudication is warranted only if the motion completely disposes of . . . a claim for damages.” (Ibid.) A motion for summary adjudication must be granted “if all the papers submitted 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.” (Ibid.)

 “On a motion for summary [adjudication], the issues are framed by the pleadings since it is those allegations to which the motion must respond.” (Scolinos v. Kolts (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 635, 640.) “Summary [adjudication] proceedings usually are limited to the issues framed by the pleadings.” (Jones v. Awad (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1200, 1211.) The pleadings “set the boundaries of the issues to be resolved at summary [adjudication].” (Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 438, 444.) Only issues raised in the pleadings are a proper subject for summary adjudication. (Hilton K. v. Greenbaum (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1412.)

III.        DISCUSSION

The Court finds that Moving Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is moot as there is no amended complaint on file in this action. While Moving Defendants contend that Plaintiff was given leave to amend the complaint, the court file in this action indicates otherwise. The Court placed the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend off-calendar. The Court neither conducted a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, ruled on such motion, nor entered an order granting Plaintiff leave to amend. Moreover, based on a review of the court file, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff has also not filed a renewed motion for leave to amend the complaint. The complaint is still the operative pleading in this action. Given the fact that the complaint does not seek punitive damages, Moving Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is directed at a non-existent pleading. Under Hilton K. v. Greenbaum, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1412, Moving Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is improper.

VI.     CONCLUSION

          In light of the foregoing, Moving Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is improper and is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving parties to give notice. 

Dated this 13^th day of October 2023

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at alhdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.