Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV33158, Date: 2023-03-14 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 14, 2023 Dept: 31
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court CONTINUES the hearing on Defendant County of Los
Angeles’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or Summary Adjudication to April 26,
2023.
The Court SUSTAINS Defendant County’s objections to
Plaintiffs’ responses to the separate statement and strikes the following
portions of the Plaintiffs’ separate statement:
Response ¶¶ 1, 6, 16, 25, 29, 31, 46, 48, 50, 53, 65, 69,
71, 72, 74- 76, 84, 86, 90, 92, 102, 109, 114, 129, 130, 131, 134-36, 137 141,
143, 148, 150, 164, 165, 170, 172, 177, 183, 184, 198, 199, 201-10, 205-07,
209, 211, 247, 282, 371, 457, 544, 635, 781, 887
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).
¿
BACKGROUND
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”).¿
Defendant County now moves for summary judgment or summary
adjudication in the alternative.
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
Defendant County
of Los Angeles has submitted various objections to Plaintiffs’ evidence filed
in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
Specifically,
Defendant County objects to Plaintiffs’ responses to the separate statement on
the basis that Plaintiffs’ response to the separate statement is statutory and
procedurally deficient.
Defendant County
contends that it had already informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that the responses to
the separate statement were deficient, provide examples of the deficient
responses, and provided case law showing the responses were deficient. (Tokoro
Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7, Ex. 77.)
The County states
that it provided Plaintiffs with an opportunity to amend the separate statement
to comply with statutory rules and warned that it would ask the Court to reject
Plaintiffs’ responses and enter summary judgment in favor of Defendant County.
(Id. ¶ 8, Ex. 78.) The County maintains that Plaintiffs responses remain
deficient in the following ways:
In Collins v.
Hertz Corp.¿(2006), the Court of Appeal found held 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 Appeal
Court confirmed 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 filed 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.)
Here, Plaintiffs’ response to the separate statement
suffers from similar deficiencies. According to Plaintiffs’ response,
Undisputed Material Fact (UMF) No. 183 is both not disputed and disputed.
Plaintiffs’ response to UMF 206 is followed by an improper argument that is
about seven pages long, followed by a string of citations. Consequently, the
Court cannot ascertain if the evidence cited in opposition of UMF 206 pertains
to the disputed fact or Plaintiffs’ improper argument.
The function of
the separate statement is to notify the parties (and the Court) as to the
material facts are 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) As stated by the appellate court, 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. “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 an improper argument
rather than stating if the Plaintiffs agree or disagree with the stated
fact. (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 fail to state if a fact is or is not disputed
and the responses conflates evidence regarding the disputed fact with evidence
cited to support the Plaintiffs’ improper arguments made in response to the
disputed fact.
The Court has the discretion to
grant the County’s motion for summary judgment based on the Plaintiffs’ failure
to comply with the requirements of the separate statement but in the interest
of justice provides the Plaintiffs with one last opportunity to refile their
separate statement to strictly comply with the Code of Civil Procedure
section 437c subdivision (b)(1) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350
subdivision (e).
The Court SUSTAINS Defendant County’s objections to
Plaintiffs’ separate statement and orders that Plaintiffs’ separate statement
be refiled.
CONCLUSION
The Court CONTINUES the hearing on Defendant County of Los
Angeles’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or Summary Adjudication to April 26,
2023.
The Court SUSTAINS Defendant County’s objections to
Plaintiffs’ responses to the separate statement and strikes the following
portions of the Plaintiffs’ separate statement:
Response ¶¶ 1, 6, 16, 25, 29, 31, 46, 48, 50, 53, 65, 69,
71, 72, 74- 76, 84, 86, 90, 92, 102, 109, 114, 129, 130, 131, 134-36, 137 141,
143, 148, 150, 164, 165, 170, 172, 177, 183, 184, 198, 199, 201-10, 205-07,
209, 211, 247, 282, 371, 457, 544, 635, 781, 887
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 refiled 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.
Clerk to give notice.