The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 843.
A Motion for Summary Judgment can be filed when a moving party can show that all evidence is in favor of the party.
“Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, 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.” Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1119.
The pleadings “‘set the boundaries of the issues to be resolved at summary judgment.’” Raiders v. Nat'l Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 648.
“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1519. There is no obligation on the opposing party to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element necessary to sustain a judgment in his favor. Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Smilecare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468. A party moving for summary judgment “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action... cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” Code of Civ. Procedure, § 437c(p)(2).
“Once the defendant... has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff... to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” Code of Civ. Procedure, § 437c(p)(2). “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467.
A motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by a written notice of motion. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(c)(1); see Code Civ. Proc., § 1010; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110. Failure to do this risks due process violations, especially given the substantial impact on the rights of the opposing party.
The motion also must have a separate statement of fact. Code Civ. Proc., §437(b)(1).
Summary judgment cannot be ordered on the court’s own motion. Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th 64, 75.
“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467; CCP §437c(c).
Other principles also guide the court, including that “‘[w]e accept as true the facts... in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them.’... And we must ‘“view the evidence in the light most favorable to [responding party]...’ and “liberally construe [responding party’s] evidentiary submissions and strictly scrutinize [moving party’s] own evidence, in order to resolve any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in [responding party’s] favor.”’” Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 254.
“If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment...that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be present, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just.” Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(h).
Generally, a partial summary judgment is not permitted. Chohon v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 538, 547 (discussing how the California summary judgment statute is modeled after the federal rule, which does not authorize a partial summary judgment).
Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 60 days before the time appointed for hearing.” Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(a).
Code of Civil Procedure 437c(3) provides: “The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. The filing of the motion shall not extend the time within which a party must otherwise file a responsive pleading.” Subsection (2) provides that “Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.”
...Inc.’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 2/18/20, 3:02 p.m.; due 2/10/20) Tentative Ruling 1. See below. 2. Defendant Bay City Surgery Center, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Background Case No. BC598167 Plaintiff Myrna Yumiko Kawakita (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she sustained injuries in a June 13, 2015 slip and fall. On October 19, 2015, Plaintiff ...
...993 F.2d 51, 53.) Again, here, Tashjian has not filed for bankruptcy, let alone received any discharge. 2. Motion for Summary Judgment Legal Standard The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute....
Feb 24, 2020
Gloria White-Brown
Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Summary Judgment/Adjudication TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Plaintiff has failed to present evidence that defendant Judi Shor was served with the three-day notice to quit, a requisite element of an unlawful detainer action. BACKGROUND: This is an ...
...items. Evidentiary Objections “In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment . . . , the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. Objections to evidence that are not ruled on for purposes of the motion shall be preserved for appellate review.” Code Civ. Proc. §437c, subd. (q). Defendants objected to portions of the declaration...
Feb 21, 2020
...own motion, the Motion for Summary Judgment currently on calendar for Friday, February 21, 2020, at 9:30 am, in Dept 4 is continued to Friday, March 20, 2020, at 9:30 am in Dept 4. On the Court's own motion, the Trial Confirmation Conference currently on calendar for Friday, March 27, 2020, at 11:30 am in Dept 4 is continued to Friday, April 24, 2020, at 11:30 am in Dept 4.
Feb 21, 2020
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is granted in the amount of $114,596. Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to #1-5 and denied as to #6, which is not shown to be a court record. Plaintif...
...granted the motion on February 16, 2018 on the ground that there was no prevailing party at trial because plaintiffs prevailed on two issues (Judgment ¶¶2 and 3B) and defendant prevailed on five issues (Judgment ¶¶1A, 1B, 3C, 4 and 5). Plaintiffs did not appeal from that ruling, and thus that ruling is final, even though the court of appeal reversed this court’s ruling on issue 3C. Even after the reversal, th...
Feb 21, 2020
...December 18, 2019 filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Tyler Thornton, Sunfire Nutrition, LLC, and Greenfield Organix dba Loudpack Farms for (1) breach of contract; (2) declaratory judgment; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) intentional interference with business contracts; and (5) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. On January 21, 2020, Defendants Tyler Thornton...
...possible determination of whether those agreed obligations have been breached, there is no contract.” (Ibid. [internal quotations and citations omitted].) In Bustamante, which examined a motion for summary judgment, the agreement at issue had the following laundry list of unsettled terms: “the form and amount of [Plaintiff's] compensation; the extent, duration, and nature of his management role, if any; the amou...
Feb 21, 2020
Motion for Summary Judgement, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff Jahmal Forte (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Def...
...Plaintiff pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. On October 10, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Defendant James E. Wolf’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication to February 20, 2020. On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff renamed Doe 3 as Defendant Daniel Wayne. Trial is set for April 24, 2020. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant James E. Wolf (“Moving Defenda...
Feb 20, 2020
Motion for Summary Judgment Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On January 18, 2018, Plaintiff Meena Dhawan (“Plaintiff”) filed a compliant against Defend...
...amendment to the complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant the Regents of the University of California. On September 12, 2019, Defendant the Regents of the University of California filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473c. Trial is set for April 28, 2020. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant the Regents of the University of California (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Cou...
Feb 20, 2020
pablo vejar, jr., Plaintiff, v. cvs pharmacy, inc., et al., Defendants. Case No.: 18STCV08399 Hearing Date: February 20, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Defendant’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY judgment Plaintiff Pablo Vejar, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) allegedly suffered injuries while working on a construction project to build a pharmacy for Defendant Garfield Beach CVS, LLC (“Defendant”). Defendant now mov...
...213.) At the time of his accident, Plaintiff was working as an air conditioning installer for American Spring Heating & Cooling (“American Spring”). (Appendix of Evidence in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit B.) Defendant hired Gray West Construction Inc. as (“Gray West”) as the general contractor for the construction project at issue. Gray West hired American Spring as a subcontractor on the pro...
Feb 20, 2020
pablo vejar, jr., Plaintiff, v. cvs pharmacy, inc., et al., Defendants. Case No.: 18STCV08399 Hearing Date: February 20, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Defendant’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY judgment Plaintiff Pablo Vejar, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) allegedly suffered injuries while working on a construction project to build a pharmacy for Defendant Garfield Beach CVS, LLC (“Defendant”). Defendant now mov...
...213.) At the time of his accident, Plaintiff was working as an air conditioning installer for American Spring Heating & Cooling (“American Spring”). (Appendix of Evidence in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit B.) Defendant hired Gray West Construction Inc. as (“Gray West”) as the general contractor for the construction project at issue. Gray West hired American Spring as a subcontractor on the pro...
Feb 20, 2020
...Services District (TAB) motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of Plaintiffs Esmail Nader Rastegari and Mahin Rastegari’s Complaint. For the following reasons, TAB’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. A defendant seeking summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion and burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to negate the plaintiff’s claim. It ma...
...dispute that TAB is a public entity, see Plaintiffs’ Responsive Separate Statement No. 16, and Plaintiff has not identified a statute permitting recovery for trespass from a public entity. TAB’s motion for summary adjudication of the first cause of action for trespass is granted. TAB also argues that Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for negligence fails because TAB is a public entity and public entities cannot...
Feb 20, 2020
Eric v. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CCP § 437c) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. ANALYSIS: On July 11, 2017, Plaintiff Eric Alexander (“Plaintiff”), a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Tameka Prevost, filed the instant action for premises liability against D...
...(Minute Order, 9/25/19.) On November 14, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. To date, no opposition has been filed. Legal Standard [A] defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the [plaintiff's] cause of action ... cannot be established....
Feb 20, 2020
...cross-complaint against MLP, and other subcontractors, for duty to defend and indemnify, among other causes of action. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS “In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. Objections to evidence that are not ruled on for purposes of the motion ...
...shall be preserved for appellate review.” (CCP § 437c(q).) Here, no objections are material to disposition of motion. SUMMARY JUDGMENT Legal Standard The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute....
Feb 20, 2020
...and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM on 19 February 2020. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel. ORDER ON DEFENDANT CITY OF SAN JOSE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. Factual and Procedural Background On 18 November 2017, after crossing Cinnabar Street on eastbound N. Montgomery Street in San Jose, plaintiff Mary Ellen Stevens (“Plaintiff”) stepped off of the ...
...Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff’s FAC. On 5 December 2019, Defendant filed the motion now before the court, a motion for summary judgment of Plaintiff’s FAC. II. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. “Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or an...
Feb 20, 2020
Socrates P. Manoukian
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEEFENDANT HONG HOLDINGS LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION On March 15, 2017, Plaintiff Maria Parra Sarinana (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Hong Holdings LLC (“Defendant”) for premises liability and negligence relating to ...
...January 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, to be heard on February 14. On February 14, the Court granted the motion for leave to amend and took the motion for summary judgment off calendar. The Court ordered that Plaintiff was to file the amended complaint within five days. Plaintiff never did that, although the parties have been litigating over the last year as if Plaintif...
Feb 20, 2020
HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA * TENTATIVE RULING: * In this consolidated action, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) moves for summary judgment or, alternatively, for summary adjudication of issues, to the separately filed complaints of plaintiffs Jose Gutierrez, Christina Gutierrez and Christopher Gutierrez (the Gutierrez plaintiffs) and pla...
...Both complaints allege injuries to the plaintiffs resulting from a fence owned and maintained by Caltrans. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(c) provides, in relevant part: “The motion for summary judgment shall 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 a judgment as a matter of law.” Based on the papers s...
Feb 20, 2020
...evidence numbers 1 and 2 are SUSTAINED. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) Granite’s objections 1-9 to Union Pacific and Brian Kline’s evidence are OVERRULED. Granite’s motion for summary judgment or alternatively summary adjudication is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Granite failed to present evidence or inferences from evidence to show that plaintiff’s injuries would have been the same had the light...
...1466-1472.) Paxin’s motion for summary judgment or alternatively summary adjudication is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Union Pacific and Brian Kline have standing to bring the opposition to Paxin’s motion for summary judgment or alternatively summary adjudication. (Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Ameron Pole Products (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 974.) Paxin failed to present evidence or inferences from evid...
Feb 20, 2020
Judge Samuel T. McAdam
...02/20/2020 JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES #9 TENTATIVE ORDER Defendant PACIFIC AMERICAN FISH CO’s unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Defendant PACIFIC AMERICAN FISH CO’s alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication is MOOT. Moving Party to give Notice. Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to the existence of the documents, but not as to any hearsay statements contained therein. Ca...
...Failure to Pay All Wages Due in Violation of California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 5 Defendant PACIFIC AMERICAN FISH CO (“PAFCO”) moves for summary judgment, or alternatively summary adjudication as to each cause of action. First Cause of Action – Common Law Claim for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Plaintiff asserts a claim for wrongful termination in violati...
Feb 20, 2020
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
...* Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The issue conference and trial dates are vacated. Defendant shall prepare a proposed judgment of dismissal, separate from any formal order on the motion, and shall submit that proposed judgment to plaintiffs’ counsel for approval as to form. The basis for this ruling is as follows. A. The Pleading Of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. A motion for summary adju...
...plaintiffs’ refusal to submit an updated application for a loan modification under the rubric of waiver, estoppel, or the original HBOR violation no longer being a “material” violation, defendant is entitled to summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ two HBOR causes of action. C. The Third Cause of Action. The Third Cause of Action is for negligence per se. Plaintiffs predicate this negligence cause of action on the ea...
Feb 20, 2020
Moore v. City of Beverly Hills et al. Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the City of Beverly Hills on 11/27/2019 is DENIED. Defendant has not shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (c) & (p)(2). In this action, Plaintiff alleges that she was walking down the sidewalk when her shoe got stuck in a divot, which caused her to fall a...
...injuries. Plaintiff asserts three causes of action against Defendant City of Beverly Hills: general negligence, premises liability and dangerous condition of public property. Defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that the defect at issue was trivial as a matter of law. I. EVIDENCE In the moving papers, Defendant presents the following evidence. In her deposition, Plaintiff testified that the i...
Feb 20, 2020
...instant special motion to strike the Cross- Complaint in its entirety. Paredes opposes the motion. II. Requests for Judicial Notice A. Paredes’ Request In support of her opposition to CCS’s special motion to strike, Paredes requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following: (1) CCS’s complaint (Exhibit C); (2) the Amended Proof of Service filed in this action (Exhibit D); and (3) the Cross-...
...special motion to strike (Iglesias Supp. Decl., Exhibit 7); (3) Paredes’ amended declaration, executed February 7, 2020 (Iglesias Supp. Decl., Exhibit 8); (4) Paredes’ original opposition to CCS’s special motion to strike (Iglesias Supp. Decl., Exhibit 9); (5) declaration of service of Paredes’ Amended Opposition And Amended Declaration (Iglesias Supp. Decl., Exhibit 10); and (6) the fact that February 12th a...
Feb 20, 2020
Motion for Continuance of Trial filed by Defendant WKS Restaurant Corporation: A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial must make the request by noticed motion or ex parte application “as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” CRC 3.1332(b). The Court may grant a request for a continuance “only on an affirmative s...
...the motion or application. CRC 3.1332(c) and (d). Defendant initially sought the trial continuance because it needed documents from plaintiff or his accountant so that it could file a motion for summary judgment and because of the unavailability of lead trial counsel and a representative of the defendant. Defendant timely filed its MSJ without the documents, which plaintiff had promised to produce, and plaint...
Feb 20, 2020
Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication filed by Defendant Control Air Conditioning Corporation: Continued to 2/27/2020. Future Hearings: MSC: 5/8/20 Jury Trial: 6/8/20
Feb 20, 2020
Defendant Nha Tran Md's Motion for Summary Judgment - DROPPED, per telephone call from counsel on February 10, 2020, and a formal written request filed on February 13, 2020.
Feb 20, 2020
Motion for Leave to Amend Answer Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On December 13, 2018, Plaintiff Shahnaz Ali (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint...
...Resendiz filed a cross-complaint against Defendant/Cross-Defendant Armen Arshakyan seeking apportionment and declaratory relief. On January 13, 2020, Defendant/Cross-Complainant David Resendiz filed a motion for leave to amend its answer pursuant to California Code of Civil procedure section 473, subdivision (a). Trial is set for June 11, 2019. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant/Cross-Complainant David Resendiz...
Feb 20, 2020
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. Background On June 22, 2018, Plaintiff Tamorah Thomas filed the instant action against Defendants Santa Monica Community College District (“SMCCD”), Steven Myrow, and Does 1 through 500....
...prejudice. Defendants move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of the first through seventh causes of action. Legal Standard The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute....
Feb 19, 2020
