On September 19, 2018 a
Order - ORDER DENYING MSJ
was filed
involving a dispute between
Nina Montoya,
Oguntolu Olufemi,
and
Montoya Nina C.,
Nina Montoya,
Oguntolu Olufemi,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
Ue
Co,
rig Fi
Unty op ttOs,of Ellifo,
Superior Court of California "Ges Mia
County of Los Angeles herr Rg
wer, ps 2019
Department 36 th
Ohio,
Ch
Clery
Puty
OLUFEMI OGUNTOLU, Case No.: BC722093
Plaintiff, Hearing Date: 11/12/2019
Vv.
RULING RE: Plaintiff’s Motion for
10 NINA MONTOYA, and DOES | to 10,
Summary Judgment, or alternatively,
11 inclusive.
Defendants. Adjudication
12
13
14 The motion for summary judgment is denied.
15 The alternative motion for summary adjudication is denied as to issues | through 10.
16
Legal Standard
17
In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts employ a three-step analysis: “(1)
18
identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated
19
the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence
20
of a triable, material factual issue.” Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th
21
289, 294. “The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism
22
to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial
23 is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th
24 826, 843.
25. The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a showing of the
26 nonexistence of any triable issue, and if so shown, the burden shifts to the opposing party to
27 make a showing of the existence of a triable issue. CCP § 437c(p)(2). To show a triable issue of
material fact exists, the opposing party may not rely on the mere allegations or denials of the
28
pleadings, but instead must set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue exists as to that
Document Filed Date
November 27, 2019
Case Filing Date
September 19, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Ue Co, rig Fi Unty op ttOs,of Ellifo, Superior Court of California "Ges Mia County of Los Angeles herr Rg wer, ps 2019 Department 36 th Ohio, Ch Clery Puty OLUFEMI OGUNTOLU, Case No.: BC722093 Plaintiff, Hearing Date: 11/12/2019 Vv. RULING RE: Plaintiff’s Motion for 10 NINA MONTOYA, and DOES | to 10, Summary Judgment, or alternatively, 11 inclusive. Defendants. Adjudication 12 13 14 The motion for summary judgment is denied. 15 The alternative motion for summary adjudication is denied as to issues | through 10. 16 Legal Standard 17 In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts employ a three-step analysis: “(1) 18 identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated 19 the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence 20 of a triable, material factual issue.” Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 21 289, 294. “The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism 22 to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial 23 is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 24 826, 843. 25. The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a showing of the 26 nonexistence of any triable issue, and if so shown, the burden shifts to the opposing party to 27 make a showing of the existence of a triable issue. CCP § 437c(p)(2). To show a triable issue of material fact exists, the opposing party may not rely on the mere allegations or denials of the 28 pleadings, but instead must set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue exists as to that