Judge Yolanda Orozco, Case 19STCV33158 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV33158, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV33158 Hearing Date: March 13, 2023 Dept: 31

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on Individual Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or Summary Adjudication, to April 26, 2023.

The Court SUSTAINS Individual Defendants’ objections to and strikes the following portions of the Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement:

UMF ¶¶ 3, 5, 8-16, 18-71, 73-78, 81-96, 99-126, 128-130, 133-143, 145,

152, 154-177, 179-200, 202-228, 230-258, 261, 263, 266-274, 277-329, 331-336, 338-342, 344-

359, 361-366, 368-395, 397-399-401-403, 405-415, 417-423, 425-427, 429-456, 458-482, and

484-514.

The Court orders the stricken portions be refiled to comport with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c subdivision (b)(1) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350 subdivision (e), no later than April 7, 2023. Defendants may file a response to the Separate Statement no later than April 17, 2023.

The Court Orders the parties to meet and confer on a new trial date and FSC and file a Stipulation to continue the trial and FSC.¿

BACKGROUND

In this action, several sheriff’s deputies—Plaintiffs Art Hernandez, Alfred Gonzalez, Benjamin Zaredini, David Casas, Louis Granados Mario Contreras, Oscar Escobedo and Ariela Lemus— who were formerly assigned to the East Los Angeles Station allege that they were pressured to quit their jobs or leave the station and that they were otherwise harassed by other deputies who are alleged members of a gang known as the Banditos.¿

The operative Sixth Amended Complaint alleges discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and related claims against Defendant County of Los Angeles (“County”) and alleges assault, battery, and other claims against Individual Defendants Rafael “Rene” Munoz (“Munoz”), Gregory Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), David Silverio (“Silverio”), and Michael Hernandez (“Hernandez”) (collectively “Individual Defendants”).¿

On December 15, 2022, Individual Defendants Rafael “Rene” Munoz, Gregory Rodriguez, David Silverio, and Michael Hernandez moved for summary adjudication as to the four (4) causes of action alleged against Defendants.

On February 27, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed opposing papers.

Individual Defendants filed a reply on March 08, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350 subdivision (e) lays out the requirements of a separate statement filed in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication:

“(1) Each material fact claimed by the moving party to be undisputed must be set out verbatim on the left side of the page, below which must be set out the evidence said by the moving party to establish that fact, complete with the moving party's references to exhibits.

(2) On the right side of the page, directly opposite the recitation of the moving party's statement of material facts and supporting evidence, the response must unequivocally state whether that fact is "disputed" or "undisputed." An opposing party who contends that a fact is disputed must state, on the right side of the page directly opposite the fact in dispute, the nature of the dispute and describe the evidence that supports the position that the fact is controverted. Citation to the evidence in support of the position that a fact is controverted must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.

(3) If the opposing party contends that additional material facts are pertinent to the disposition of the motion, those facts must be set forth in the separate statement. The separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion. Each fact must be followed by the evidence that establishes the fact. Citation to the evidence in support of each material fact must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c subdivision (b)(1) states, in part:

“The opposition papers shall include a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts contended by the moving party to be undisputed, indicating if the opposing party agrees or disagrees that those facts are undisputed. The statement also shall set forth plainly and concisely any other material facts the opposing party contends are disputed. Each material fact contended by the opposing party to be disputed shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. Failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for granting the motion.”

DISCUSSION

Individual Defendants filed various objections to the Plaintiffs’ evidence filed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The Court finds these objections well-taken.

Specifically, Individual Defendants request that the Court either deem undisputed each entry in Plaintiffs’ separate statement that fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 342 (UMF Nos. ¶¶ 3, 5, 8-16, 18-71, 73-78, 81-96, 99-126, 128-130, 133-143, 145, 152, 154-177, 179-200, 202-228, 230-258, 261, 263, 266-274, 277-329, 331-336, 338-342, 344-359, 361-366, 368-395, 397-399-401-403, 405-415, 417-423, 425-427, 429-456, 458-482, and 484-514), or order that the non-compliant portions of the Separate Statement be stricken and Plaintiff be forced to refile.

In reviewing the Individual Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ response to the Separate Statement, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ separate statement fails to comply with the rules set for in the Code of Civil Procedure and the California Rules of Court.

In Collins v. Hertz Corp.¿(2006), the Court of Appeal found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking portions of plaintiffs’ separate statement on a motion for summary judgment because the separate statement failed to comply with statutory and procedural requirements. (Collins v. Hertz Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 64, 72.) After resubmission, the plaintiff in Collins again failed to comply with statutory and procedural requirements and the trial court deemed the facts undisputed facts as a matter of law. (Id. at 70). The Court held that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the statutory and procedural requirements of the separate statement warranted the trial court’s actions.

The plaintiff in Collins had submitted a separate statement that either failed to cite supporting evidence or “incorporated other responses or as many as 132 other ‘facts' set forth elsewhere, ... making it difficult or impossible to determine the material disputed facts asserted by [appellants].’” (Collins, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at 70.)

This is the precise situation here. For example, Undisputed Material Fact (UMF) No. 279 states: “Justin Waites is African-American.” (UMF 279). Plaintiffs’ response to UMF 279 is “Disputed,” followed by improper argument mixed in with references to Plaintiffs’ evidence that is six pages long. (See Plaintiffs’ response to Separate Statement p. 423-429.) The end of the response is followed by a string of citations to the Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Evidence (PCOE). Consequently, the Court cannot ascertain if the evidence cited in opposition of UMF 279 pertains to the disputed fact, Plaintiffs’ improper argument or something else. The Court should not have to review Plaintiffs’ string of citations in their PCOE in order to evaluate the propriety of Plaintiffs’ challenge to the evidence cited in UMF No. 279.

The function of a separate statement is to notify the parties (and the Court) as to the material facts at issue and provide “a convenient and expeditious vehicle permitting the trial court to home in on the truly disputed facts.” (Collins, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at 73) The Court’s admonishment in Collins is apt here. The Collins Court stated that the trial court is not required to:

“‘wade through a ‘full box of Xerox paper or roughly 5000 sheets’ in an attempt to discern whether any material facts remained disputed among the 13 parties or 12 matters at issue in the motion for summary judgment. It is appellants' duty to direct the court to evidence that supports their claims. It is not the court's duty to rummage through the papers to construct or resuscitate their case.’”

(Id. at 75.)

The Court did just that in having to review the Plaintiffs’ evidence since the witnesses’ deposition testimony was redacted and filed conditionally under seal. The Court found that Plaintiffs have cited evidence in the Separate Statement that is not even contained in the files lodged with the Court. For example, the Plaintiffs cite Exhibit 21, the Deposition of Deputy Conception Garcia, to either rebut the UMF or as support for the argument made in response to the UMF. However, the cited evidence is not included in the physical copies Plaintiffs lodged with the Court such as pages 78, 79, 80 and 199 of the deposition testimony of Deputy Garcia. Accordingly, the Court cannot determine what facts Deputy Garcia’s deposition was supposed to rebut as disputed because the deposition pages are missing and because the Court cannot ascertain if Exhibit 21 was cited to rebut the disputed fact or to support the improper argument made to the disputed fact.

“Upon a motion in summary judgment, the controlling question before the trial court is whether there is a material issue of fact to be tried. If the trial court determines there is one, it is powerless to proceed further. The issue must be decided in trial by the finder of fact.” (Haskell v. Carli (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 124, 132.) This is difficult for the Court to do when in response to the majority of each UMF, the Plaintiffs’ make improper arguments rather than stating if the Plaintiffs agree or disagree with the stated fact, then present discrete facts which rebut the stated fact if Plaintiffs disagree with it. (Code Civ. Pro., § 473c subd. (b)(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350 subd. (f)(2).)

“‘Separate statements are required not to satisfy a sadistic urge to torment lawyers, but rather to afford due process to opposing parties and to permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions for ... summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are disputed.’” (Security Pacific Nat. Bank v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 89, 93–94.)

Although the evidence of the party opposing a motion for summary judgment is liberally construed, this is difficult for the Court to do when the Plaintiffs’ response to the separate statement conflates evidence regarding the disputed fact with evidence cited to supporting the Plaintiffs’ improper arguments made in response to the disputed fact.

The Court notes that Defendant County of Los Angeles makes similar objections to Plaintiffs’ response to the separate statement.

The Court has the discretion to grant Individual Defendants’ motion based on the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the requirements for a separate statement. In the interest of justice, the Court will allow Plaintiffs with one opportunity to refile their separate statement to strictly comply with the statutory and procedural requirements outlined above.

The Court SUSTAINS Individual Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement and orders that Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement be refiled in a manner that strictly complies with applicable rules and requirements.

CONCLUSION