Preview
os©'
~x
x
sumsmon coum'
LAW OFFICE OF IEFF BENNION J
couwrv of same: gflfi'efiaonfiam F
M. BSENNION, SBN 275946
£25213}? NDIA NDX
"r
0 CT
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 4 2015
R'
l
(619) 609-7 198 Darrel E. Parker. Executive
Officer
IEFF@]BENNIONLAW.COM CA
BY
M _____
. :
Attorneys for Defendants
l l e mr. J
' ,
Fm ___.
Chr1s I-lulme and Clearv1ew
m
J -~-
Industrles, Inc.
\Oooaoxu-Amnv-d
~___
ATT M
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
ST ~
000 __
ANACAPA DIVISION
Patsy Moler’
Case No. 1417847
Plaintiff,
Additional Materials in Support of
v. Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Adjudication
Chris Hulme, individually and dba
Clearwew Industries, Inc., and Does 1 Date: October l4, 201 5
through 10,1nclus1ve Time: 9:30 A.M.
Dept: SB1
Defendants.
Complaint Filed: 7/1/1 3
Assl ned: Hon. {ames E Herman
And Related Cross Action Tria Date: 3 /2/ 6
NNNNNNMNMHI-Jp-nn-lu-IHHHHv-a
WQQMAMNHowmQOM-AWNHO
Defendants respectfully submit the following in support of their Motion for
Summary Adjudication.
I. Alter Ego Is a Claim and CRC Expressly Allows
Organizing the Separate Statement by Claim
In the Court’s tentative, the Court properly cited the CRC 3.1350(d) as
regarding the format of the Separate Statement. That section states that the
Separate Statement “must separately identify each cause of action, claim, issue of
duty, or affirmative defense...” In the Court’s analysis in the subsequent paragraph,
the Court changed the language to state that the rules require the format of the
Declaration of Jeff Bennion
H separate statement to separately identify each cause of action, claim for damages,
issue of duty, or affirmative defense. If alter ego is not a claim for damages, it is
certainly a claim in this case, therefore, under the rules, the header is correct.
The issue of headers in a separate statement was evaluated in Truong v.
Glasser (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 102, 118:
\oooqoussww
Moreover, even if some additional headings had been re uir_ed, the
court's power todeny summa udgment on the basis .0 failure to
comply w1th California Rules o ourt, rule 3.13501s discretionary
not mandato . (See Cadlo v. Owens-Illmms, Inc. (2004) 12g
Cal.Ap .4th 51 , 523, 23 Cal. 0ptr.3»d 1; cf. San Die 0 Watercrafts,
Inc. v. ells Fargo Bank (2002) l 2 Cal.l_°ipp.4th 308, 15-316, 125
Cal.Rptr.2d 4 9.) The facts critical to the ruling were
adequately identified, and Plaintiffs have not e lained how
any alle ed deficiency in Glasser's Separate atement of
Materi acts im aired Plaintiffs‘ ability to marshal evidence
to show that materia facts were in dispute as to the proper ap lication
of the statute of limitations. We conclude the trial cou did not
abuse its discretion by declining to reject _the summary
judgment motion based on the absence of headings within the
Separate Statement of Material Facts.
Here, as in Truong, Plaintiff was under no prejudice by the failure to label the
first heading “Breach of Contract” and then have several other blank tables
underneath that simply say that they incorporate the above facts for each cause of
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHr-lu-as-av-av-a
Further, under C.C.P. 47 3 (a) (1),
the Court may allow for the correction of a
mistake:
mqmubwuh-ooooqou-Atpnwo
The court may, in furtherance of 'ustice, and on any terms as rnay be
proper,_ allow _a party to amen any pleading or proceeding...by
correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other
respect;
Here, justice would be furthered by allowing the Defendants to correct the
mistake. The sole dispute of alter ego has produced voluminous records and
evidence as well as consumed over three full days of deposition testimony and over
100 facts in the combined separate statements that would need to be proven before
2
Declaration of Jeff Bennion
a jury. The facts are entirely undisputed and are proper before the court1 it would
be a burden on the parties and the Court to have the evidence presented again for a
discretionary item involving format of headings.
Respectfully Submitted,
‘Omacau-aunw
Dated: October 14, 201 5 Law Office of Ieff Bennion
Ieffr
O/ ennion, Esq.
Att eys for Defendant
mflQM-buNF-‘QOmflChu-bV-AINPO
MNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
1
Because alter ego claims are equitable in nature, a court, and not a jury,
determines whether the moving party met its burden to show the grounds for
applying the doctrine. (See Dow jones Co. v. Avenel (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 144,
147-148.)
3
Declaration of Ieff Bennion
Preview
os©' ~x x sumsmon coum' LAW OFFICE OF IEFF BENNION J couwrv of same: gflfi'efiaonfiam F M. BSENNION, SBN 275946 £25213}? NDIA NDX "r 0 CT SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 4 2015 R' l (619) 609-7 198 Darrel E. Parker. Executive Officer IEFF@]BENNIONLAW.COM CA BY M _____ . : Attorneys for Defendants l l e mr. J ' , Fm ___. Chr1s I-lulme and Clearv1ew m J -~- Industrles, Inc. \Oooaoxu-Amnv-d ~___ ATT M SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ST ~ 000 __ ANACAPA DIVISION Patsy Moler’ Case No. 1417847 Plaintiff, Additional Materials in Support of v. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication Chris Hulme, individually and dba Clearwew Industries, Inc., and Does 1 Date: October l4, 201 5 through 10,1nclus1ve Time: 9:30 A.M. Dept: SB1 Defendants. Complaint Filed: 7/1/1 3 Assl ned: Hon. {ames E Herman And Related Cross Action Tria Date: 3 /2/ 6 NNNNNNMNMHI-Jp-nn-lu-IHHHHv-a WQQMAMNHowmQOM-AWNHO Defendants respectfully submit the following in support of their Motion for Summary Adjudication. I. Alter Ego Is a Claim and CRC Expressly Allows Organizing the Separate Statement by Claim In the Court’s tentative, the Court properly cited the CRC 3.1350(d) as regarding the format of the Separate Statement. That section states that the Separate Statement “must separately identify each cause of action, claim, issue of duty, or affirmative defense...” In the Court’s analysis in the subsequent paragraph, the Court changed the language to state that the rules require the format of the Declaration of Jeff Bennion H separate statement to separately identify each cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense. If alter ego is not a claim for damages, it is certainly a claim in this case, therefore, under the rules, the header is correct. The issue of headers in a separate statement was evaluated in Truong v. Glasser (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 102, 118: \oooqoussww Moreover, even if some additional headings had been re uir_ed, the court's power todeny summa udgment on the basis .0 failure to comply w1th California Rules o ourt, rule 3.13501s discretionary not mandato . (See Cadlo v. Owens-Illmms, Inc. (2004) 12g Cal.Ap .4th 51 , 523, 23 Cal. 0ptr.3»d 1; cf. San Die 0 Watercrafts, Inc. v. ells Fargo Bank (2002) l 2 Cal.l_°ipp.4th 308, 15-316, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 4 9.) The facts critical to the ruling were adequately identified, and Plaintiffs have not e lained how any alle ed deficiency in Glasser's Separate atement of Materi acts im aired Plaintiffs‘ ability to marshal evidence to show that materia facts were in dispute as to the proper ap lication of the statute of limitations. We conclude the trial cou did not abuse its discretion by declining to reject _the summary judgment motion based on the absence of headings within the Separate Statement of Material Facts. Here, as in Truong, Plaintiff was under no prejudice by the failure to label the first heading “Breach of Contract” and then have several other blank tables underneath that simply say that they incorporate the above facts for each cause of NNNNNNNNNHHHHHr-lu-as-av-av-a Further, under C.C.P. 47 3 (a) (1), the Court may allow for the correction of a mistake: mqmubwuh-ooooqou-Atpnwo The court may, in furtherance of 'ustice, and on any terms as rnay be proper,_ allow _a party to amen any pleading or proceeding...by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; Here, justice would be furthered by allowing the Defendants to correct the mistake. The sole dispute of alter ego has produced voluminous records and evidence as well as consumed over three full days of deposition testimony and over 100 facts in the combined separate statements that would need to be proven before 2 Declaration of Jeff Bennion a jury. The facts are entirely undisputed and are proper before the court1 it would be a burden on the parties and the Court to have the evidence presented again for a discretionary item involving format of headings. Respectfully Submitted, ‘Omacau-aunw Dated: October 14, 201 5 Law Office of Ieff Bennion Ieffr O/ ennion, Esq. Att eys for Defendant mflQM-buNF-‘QOmflChu-bV-AINPO MNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH 1 Because alter ego claims are equitable in nature, a court, and not a jury, determines whether the moving party met its burden to show the grounds for applying the doctrine. (See Dow jones Co. v. Avenel (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 144, 147-148.) 3 Declaration of Ieff Bennion