Preview
FILED
Superior Court of Califo
BF
County of Placer mus
MAR 11 2021
WN
Jake Chatters
Executive Officer &
KR
By: M. Taylor, De
UN
BD
AN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
OC Oo
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, CASE NO.: S-CV-0042080
BP
HF
INC., . .
Plaintiff Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for
Be Be
! Summary Judgment
WN
vs.
KR
BP
ERIK LUDWICK, et al.
BP KP
Defendants.
DH
The hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment came on for
BP KBP
WAN
hearing on March 11, 2021. The appearances of the parties for the hearing
The court has read and considered
FP
were as recited in the court’s minutes.
OW
the moving and opposing papers and heard the oral arguments of counsel.
NN
The court issues the following ruling on the matters submitted for decision:
BKRWwNHHrP
Ruling on Objections
NY NN
Plaintiff’s objections nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 are sustained. Plaintiff’s
objection no. 4 is sustained as to the factual statement. Objection no. 4 is
Plaintiff’s objections nos.
NM NY
overruled as to the documents found in Exhibit 4.
Au
8 and 10 are sustained to the extent they refer to the inadmissible judicial
notice requests. Objections nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 are
OoOnN
NN
sustained in their entirety. Objections nos. 9 and 20 are overruled.
Defendants’ objections are overruled in their entirety. Their objections
B
are not compliant with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1354(b), which
WY
requires the party to quote the objectionable statement or material of
evidence. Instead of quoting the evidence, defendants point to portions of
BR
plaintiff’s opposition.
DN
Ruling on Requests for Judicial Notice
Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted solely as to the
ON
documents encompassed in Exhibit 4. The remainder of the requests
subject to plaintiff’s objections, which have been sustained.
Oo
10 Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted under Evidence Code
section 452.
12 Ruling on Motion
13 The motion is denied. The trial court shall grant a motion for summary
14 judgment if “all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as
15 to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
16 matter of law.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(c).) The moving party
L7 bears the initial burden of establishing that one or elements of a cause of
18 action cannot be established or there is a complete defense to the cause of
19 action. (Id. at 437c(p)(2).) Only when this initial burden is met does the
20 burden shift to the opposing party to establish a triable issue of material
21 fact. (Ibid.) In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the trial court
22 must view the supporting evidence, and inferences reasonably drawn from
23 such evidence, in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Aguilar v.
24 Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Here, after
25 considering the objections and admissible evidence, defendants have not
26 made a sufficient showing that plaintiff’s claims are barred due to the statute
Jf of frauds or a lack of standing. (see generally Defendants’ SSUMF.) In
28 presenting their arguments and evidence, defendants ignore an essential
allegation within the complaint, plaintiffs’ acquisition of Partners Trust on
August 2, 2017, becoming the owner of the listing agreement. (Complaint
WHY
2.) The pleadings, not defendant, frame the scope of the motion.
(Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th
BR
95, 98; Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1258.)
DH
Defendants must challenge the claims raised by plaintiff with sufficient
evidence to meet their initial burden. They fail to submit admissible
ON
evidence to challenge plaintiff’s acquisition of the listing agreement as an
asset or plaintiff’s ability to enforce the agreement.
Oo
10 Defendants have also failed to show plaintiff is unable to establish the
elements of any of he pleaded causes of action. (Ibid.) It is worth noting
LZ that challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings is not the proper standard
13 for summary judgment motion. Summary judgment negates the elements
14 of a cause of action through extrinsic evidence; challenge to the
15 untentability of the pleadings are brought by way demurrer or motion for
16 judgment on the pleadings. (Cordova v. 21st Century Insurance Co. (2005)
17 129 Cal.App.4th 89, 109.) Defendants were unsuccessful in challenging the
18 sufficiency of the allegations with their demurrer heard on May 9, 2019, and
19 fail to raise any further pleading deficiencies here. Since defendants have
20 failed to meet their burden here, the motion is denied.
21
22 DATED: 4//-2/
Hon. Charles D. Wachob
23
Judge of the Superior Court
24
25
26
27
28
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (C.C.P. §1013a(4))
Case No.: S-CV-0042080
Case Name: Pacific Union International, Inc. vs. Ludwick, Erik et al
I, the undersigned, certify that I am the clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of
Placer, and I am not a party to this action.
I mailed copies of the documents(s) indicated below:
Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
True copies of the documents were mailed following standard court practices in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows:
Lawrence Skidmore
200 Auburn Folsom Rd, Ste 305
Auburn, CA 95603
Michael Nangano
133 N Altadena Dr, Ste 403
Pasadena, CA 91107
Shannon Jones
208 W EI Pintado Rd
Danville, CA 94526
I am readily familiar with the court’s business practices for collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing; pursuant to those practices, these documents are delivered to
[X] the US Postal Service
[_] UPS
[_] FedEx
[_] Interoffice mail
[_] Other
on ZIQA in Placer County, California.
JAKE CHATTERS
Clerk of the Superior Court
d: by:
Dated: 2./| -H| C
* af. Taylor’ Dep&ey Clerk
Preview
FILED Superior Court of Califo BF County of Placer mus MAR 11 2021 WN Jake Chatters Executive Officer & KR By: M. Taylor, De UN BD AN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER OC Oo PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, CASE NO.: S-CV-0042080 BP HF INC., . . Plaintiff Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Be Be ! Summary Judgment WN vs. KR BP ERIK LUDWICK, et al. BP KP Defendants. DH The hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment came on for BP KBP WAN hearing on March 11, 2021. The appearances of the parties for the hearing The court has read and considered FP were as recited in the court’s minutes. OW the moving and opposing papers and heard the oral arguments of counsel. NN The court issues the following ruling on the matters submitted for decision: BKRWwNHHrP Ruling on Objections NY NN Plaintiff’s objections nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 are sustained. Plaintiff’s objection no. 4 is sustained as to the factual statement. Objection no. 4 is Plaintiff’s objections nos. NM NY overruled as to the documents found in Exhibit 4. Au 8 and 10 are sustained to the extent they refer to the inadmissible judicial notice requests. Objections nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 are OoOnN NN sustained in their entirety. Objections nos. 9 and 20 are overruled. Defendants’ objections are overruled in their entirety. Their objections B are not compliant with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1354(b), which WY requires the party to quote the objectionable statement or material of evidence. Instead of quoting the evidence, defendants point to portions of BR plaintiff’s opposition. DN Ruling on Requests for Judicial Notice Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted solely as to the ON documents encompassed in Exhibit 4. The remainder of the requests subject to plaintiff’s objections, which have been sustained. Oo 10 Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted under Evidence Code section 452. 12 Ruling on Motion 13 The motion is denied. The trial court shall grant a motion for summary 14 judgment if “all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as 15 to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a 16 matter of law.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(c).) The moving party L7 bears the initial burden of establishing that one or elements of a cause of 18 action cannot be established or there is a complete defense to the cause of 19 action. (Id. at 437c(p)(2).) Only when this initial burden is met does the 20 burden shift to the opposing party to establish a triable issue of material 21 fact. (Ibid.) In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the trial court 22 must view the supporting evidence, and inferences reasonably drawn from 23 such evidence, in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Aguilar v. 24 Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Here, after 25 considering the objections and admissible evidence, defendants have not 26 made a sufficient showing that plaintiff’s claims are barred due to the statute Jf of frauds or a lack of standing. (see generally Defendants’ SSUMF.) In 28 presenting their arguments and evidence, defendants ignore an essential allegation within the complaint, plaintiffs’ acquisition of Partners Trust on August 2, 2017, becoming the owner of the listing agreement. (Complaint WHY 2.) The pleadings, not defendant, frame the scope of the motion. (Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th BR 95, 98; Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1258.) DH Defendants must challenge the claims raised by plaintiff with sufficient evidence to meet their initial burden. They fail to submit admissible ON evidence to challenge plaintiff’s acquisition of the listing agreement as an asset or plaintiff’s ability to enforce the agreement. Oo 10 Defendants have also failed to show plaintiff is unable to establish the elements of any of he pleaded causes of action. (Ibid.) It is worth noting LZ that challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings is not the proper standard 13 for summary judgment motion. Summary judgment negates the elements 14 of a cause of action through extrinsic evidence; challenge to the 15 untentability of the pleadings are brought by way demurrer or motion for 16 judgment on the pleadings. (Cordova v. 21st Century Insurance Co. (2005) 17 129 Cal.App.4th 89, 109.) Defendants were unsuccessful in challenging the 18 sufficiency of the allegations with their demurrer heard on May 9, 2019, and 19 fail to raise any further pleading deficiencies here. Since defendants have 20 failed to meet their burden here, the motion is denied. 21 22 DATED: 4//-2/ Hon. Charles D. Wachob 23 Judge of the Superior Court 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (C.C.P. §1013a(4)) Case No.: S-CV-0042080 Case Name: Pacific Union International, Inc. vs. Ludwick, Erik et al I, the undersigned, certify that I am the clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Placer, and I am not a party to this action. I mailed copies of the documents(s) indicated below: Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment True copies of the documents were mailed following standard court practices in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows: Lawrence Skidmore 200 Auburn Folsom Rd, Ste 305 Auburn, CA 95603 Michael Nangano 133 N Altadena Dr, Ste 403 Pasadena, CA 91107 Shannon Jones 208 W EI Pintado Rd Danville, CA 94526 I am readily familiar with the court’s business practices for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing; pursuant to those practices, these documents are delivered to [X] the US Postal Service [_] UPS [_] FedEx [_] Interoffice mail [_] Other on ZIQA in Placer County, California. JAKE CHATTERS Clerk of the Superior Court d: by: Dated: 2./| -H| C * af. Taylor’ Dep&ey Clerk