Preview
J. STEPHANIE KRMPOTIC, SBN 128671
ELIZABETH I.STEWART, SBN 243049
CHRISTINA W. SUN, SBN 306762
LOW, BALL & LYNCH
505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
FILer
Superior Court of Callfo
Telephone: (415) 981-6630 . County of Placer rite
rN
Facsimile: (415) 982-1634
jskrmpotic@lowball.com NOV 13 2018
WN
dake Chatters
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant
HD
erties Officer & Clerk
OREGON SHEPHERD, LLC dba OREGON +O. Lucatuorto, Deputy
SHEPHERD, an Oregon Limited Liability Company
YN
oOo
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Oo
10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
11
12 JANENE BAUHOFER and MICHAEL No. SCV0039397
JOHNSON, (Unlimited Jurisdiction)
13
Plaintiffs,
14
TrTwy
TAY
Vs. OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF
15 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT.OF
QUINCY McCOURT, individually and dba MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN
16
DY
McQUIN CONSTRUCTION THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY
DY
MANAGEMENT; OREGON SHEPHERD, ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
17 LLC dba OREGON SHEPHERD, an Oregon
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-50,
18 inclusive, Date: January 29, 2019
Time: 8:30 a.m.
19 Defendants. Dept: 40
20 Trial Date: § March 4, 2019
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
2]
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MMPA.docx
a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
I. INTRODUCTION wo... cceecsesesesesssesesesevesevavsessescesusassssscassavacsseresesavecausasasavavasacsauevavacecevarsesses
1
TI SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........ccccscssssesssseseesesssesescsesessssesesesssssvsvessusasavasesesasarsssesavaveereesevavenes
2
Breach of Contract... .csescssessssssecsssssssssecsescsesssssssescassesesssveuseaseevavsceveasecerseseensavavsesavseeees
Z
a
B. Breach of Express Warranty.....ccsccccscssssssccssesessescscsesecsesesescscsessssescececsssarseasavsvaueasessvasavsese
Z
SID war
Cc. Negligent Misrepresentation spare TEBE idiidnanenveasesueceressuetrsuess
Stirs ss GIeXNNESSIEUSAENERENE
2
D. Breach of Implied WAITTAMNLY....sssscssssessesssssssssssctssosnssonnosssnsssctsssessesssssnsensesseverseveeseasessasensssd
E. Restitution/Unjust Pari biteth conncymrscmorve ssn RTA ARNENRENRERNTRENE RA ihthihainieanenncenaneenenway
2
F, Implied Contractual Indemnity ....0...ccceecccsseccssesecescseeseesseseseeesecscecersecsvsvscatscstuecesacavavanses
2
10 G. Equitable Indemnity .0......
ceeceeseeessceeeeees
one e nOE
OER eRe sineREO URaE Ney
enRUR
OOMENIEANORRERESNE
3
11 H. Declaratory Relief Regarding Contribution and Indemnity ...........cccccccesesesseseeseeeseereees
3
12
13 IV, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS sssssssssssnsssssssssassesarcansaiusncsttoteccecsoerenees
4
14 V. LEGAL ARGUMENT ..0...cecccecccsesesssessesessssesssseacseacsesessssassessesesseseeacaesassevaeresscassesutsusavenseeseavaree
4
15 A. McCourt’s Breach of Contract Cause of Action Fails as a Matter of Law .....ccceceeeeeee=
16 ie Me Co trt’s Alle pa G28 sassssees
sssenssnssnxsiwsanaxszs0asiteone
senerereccecansnsersnereargyegeyyexecuseesvntuney
4
17 as McCourt and Oregon Shepherd did not Enter into a Written Contract.........00...0...
5
18 a Any Alleged Written Contract is Barred by the Statute of Limitations.................
5
19 4. Any Alleged Oral Contract isBarred by the Statute of Limitations ......00000c00..
6
20 B. McCourt’s Breach of Express Warranty Case of Action Fails as a Matter of Law............
6
21 1. McCourt’s Allegations 20... ccc ccscecsesesseessecseessseesseeesecesessececesecerscseeessscsaseereeneeners
6
22 2. McCourt Fails to Establish that Oregon Shepherd Warranted that the Wood
Insulation Would be Free From Infestation for aLifetime ........
ccc eeeeeeeesseees6
23
3 Any Alleged Express Warranty is Barred by the Statute of Limitations ...............
7
24
C, McCourt’s Negligent Misrepresentation Cause of Action Fails as a Matter of Law.........7
25
L MocCourt’s Allegations ...vcnsnsescorssronensenens
neennnranananeannecnauscuesnensanacynevesaeennraeanneateoncane
7
26
2. Any Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation Cause of Action isBarred by the
27 Statute of Limitations sssssasvanseseceneceensnnanssecencesnasassesseesnnnnasussecseensanannusstsessensssnsnessssses
8
28 D. McCourt’s Breach of Implied Warranty Cause of Action Fails as aMatter of Law.........8
“ie
OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
N:\1203\SFO840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
ie McCourt’s Allegations 00... cecscscesssseeceesscessessecsesessessesseseessesseseeceecsecanseseeseaseascaees
8
WN
2. Any Alleged Implied Warranty if Barred by the Statute of Limitations................8
Ww
McCourt’s Restitution/Unjust Enrichment Cause of Action is Barred by the Good
Faith Settlement Determination Between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd............c.0006 9
&
1. McCourt’s Allegations .......0.cee EA EA ESRB YISOWABSAA SRR TANSNATR
hs Serene
9
A
2. McCourt’s Cause of Action for Restitution/Unjust Enrichment is Barred by
DBD
the Good Faith Settlement...
seeeeccscseeseseeessesecesesecsceeesessecseeeeseesseatsseeeseeeseesaees
9
NS
McCourt’s Implied Contractual Indemnity Cause of Action is Barred by the Good
Faith Determination between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd..............c:ccccsecsessesserseeene
10
Oo
1. McCourt’s Allegations ........... aR aN ERIE RA SANTA
b ib
dha
nimn end
emcrnoeeennenere
10
Oo
10 2, McCourt’s Cause of Action for Implied Contractual Indemnity is Barred by
theCioed Faith: Seti ler Gb scccnaruneseaeonsmeaecnnemansereanamenneenrannnemmsmaaiannmenccaats
10
11
McCourt’s Equitable Indemnity Cause of Action is Barred by the Good Faith
12 Determination Between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd .............ccccccssesesssessceesecnseeeeseees
11
13 i McCourt’s Allegations Sa AST GARE DEERE T CREnemenenanenenmenenmercemenprmgony
ery11
14 2 McCourt’s Cause of Action for Equitable Indemnity is Barred by the Good
Faith SCC SCN b ccsesncasssennsnsanccsnannasnannanvxamsennnavenniennnanane
seantasassaNNRNNetoUt
Bkenananannnnns
11
15
McCourt’s Declaratory Relief Regarding Indemnity and Contribution Cause of
16 Action isBarred by the Good Faith Determination Between Plaintiffs and Oregon
Shepherd ....cccecscecescesesscsesseesessessescssevsevesecseesersenrenseseeseseeseessesasesseeseesedseesaeaeveesessesneneenes
11
17
1. MecCourt’s Allegations .0......ccccccesecescecseccseesseesansesencaeessesesseseesseecseseessseasecseeaeegs
11
18
2. McCourt’s Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief is Barred by the Good
19 Fatty Sette iiihit. csssoneaves
sas.
s06-cdconeenenenenteh
hhh SSCL AAAS nterennnnonemnnnnentnavedeneeneoness
11
20 VI. COIN LCTSIIIN iss. cen wens aR A Se
ES RUA SE SI A RRR A rhe nds
SHERSEEVEATA
Dee 12
21
22
23
24
25
26
97
28
-Li-
OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx
a
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank
(1986) 179 Cal. App.3d 1061 .....c.cccecccccscecesesesesseseereeses ja 1ohsanenreonssneusessessonsatsssesesseatacsoseeeeseecereeneaces
3
LP
Angeles Chem. Co. v. Spencer & Jones
(1996)
WN
44 Cal. App.4th 112...
cccsesssssssescssesssessucssssssessesssrssusssussssssssesasssessersesuesaesssessesseseeseen
6,8
DH
Bay Develop., Ltd. v. Sup. Ct. (Home Capital Corp.)
(1990) 50 Cal.3d 1012...
eccesccscsssseststssssstsesacseseseseens
see eh AA
WINRAR
ANIL romncemvervsenvsesinxanins,LO
SIT
Be v. Western Truck Exchange
CO
(1997) 55 Cal App.4th, 1139...
cccccssesssssssesecsesccsescsssevsssusassustsassssusassesssseesssesvesseusecsteseveveevescecc.
9
eo
Butcher v. Truck Ins. Exchange
(2000) 77 Cal. App.4th 1442...
cececcssesesseeseeseessesesssssesssessessesssraussusavsassasasssesacusesvarssaustsetsessecenseeeess
8
10
Campion v. Downey
ll (1926) 77 Cal. App. 125...
cssssssessssessesseseescssssssessssssssssssssssesvaseasassusscascesassvcarsussesutersesessesusecerenseces
5
12 CDF Firefighters vs. Maldonado
(2008) 158 Cal. App.4th 1226..........cscssssssssnsscssesessersssnscnessenssnscnesasesccossesesssssssssnsssssssesrenseuscasenereneeD
13
Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specifically Ins. Co.
14 (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189... ccccscsccsecrecssssessesssssessssesesesssscscacsescecscsecsvasseseersesseseessurscseaesesscevecsenscasece
5
15 County of San Bernardino v. Walsh
(2007) 158 Cal. App.4th 533.0. scesessestseessseessseevescssessssensesessesscsnessessusseseseevsassesssersusassesacesesD
16
Daugher v. Ford Motor Co.
17 (2015) 238 Cal App.4th 905... cccsscsssssscsssescsssesescoeeacssessssssssscsessudsassavacavavacsesevasacatsessusvassvacueaves
7
18 Davis v. Sallie Mae, Inc.
(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1086...
ccccscsccecsescescsesecssseesssescsacsssessvecsecacsessvasearsevacassasavsevaveceucavenes
5
19
E-Fab, Inc. V. Accountants, Inc. Services
20 (2007) 153 Cal. App.4th 1308.0... ccecsssseeseseesesseeecsseeesseeeees
eee nanan 8
21 F.D.LC. v. Dintino 3 .
(2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 333 oo cecccccecssssessssessesesesseceneseseessessesecsesesssessesecaceeserseavessasasesegaceucareasanes
9
22
Far West Financial Corp. v.D&S Co.
23 (IDES) 46) Cal 3d TG 2 mecersovengencd
nor weesesnesnarecrneeanennen
enceanismsanOevaSSSNNAS
ROSSTADEAURA ORGSE
ARERSTNTeran
11
24 FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima .
(1991) 231 Cal. App.3d 367...
ececcccccscsesscsesssesscsesssscsscsessesessescescssseceesececeusecscescassssatacaevacaeneessaranes
3
2
Fundin v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company
26 — CORA) VEZ CALADD SOS wcssasascnmaenamcnsuaasnnntncsthdscsmnceenentasnnarsavarunanccannnger
eps vientgevennenwvereyreessterne
8
27 J.L. v. Children's Institute,Inc.
(2009) 177 Cal. App.4th 388 oc. cccccsccssscssssssesscsscssecsscaeesnevasesscnessscssesucsucaseusscsscsasseceuceuvensasecaceeeas
4
28
-iii-
OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\M
SJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx
~
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Keith v. Buchanan
(1985) 173 Cal. App.3d 13 ..cccccccescsessessessessessecsssseecsessesesenessessescssessessecsassassssesssasseseesseceessersess
a
‘| Levin v. Blue Shield of California
(2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1117...
cecssesscssssecsessecsssseessesssssscessesecsecsecessesecsevseessasssersersetsesessstaserees
9
Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn.
(1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, as modifiedon denial of reh’g, (Dec. 1,1899) .....eeeessessessessessnsserseseenee
3
DD
Onciano v. Golden Palace Restaurant, Inc. :
(1990) 219 Cal AQP .30 985 cccancsmmsccumeswuraesnmuunvanaienesnsnnsvada
addisaduitssniasksedéaanssannenostreeaunensasmonvancepeass
3
NN
Spear v. Cal State Automobile Ass’n
Co
(1993) 2 Cal AT 103 5 vcsncsccccexcnnassxonsixcensnsssxancesmeaweesuniane
siansteesinds
suv eaNRSARONRCRAGTIIASLiamavwennaneeenvemsane
6, 8
oOo
Tanenbaum Textile Co. v. Schlanger ;
10 (1942) 287 N.Y. 400... cee ececceecesceeceecerecoeeeeevsrccnecesessecsesesseseaseesesesseseeseasessesensesusesuseateuessessesaeeas
5
11 Ventura County Nat. Bank v. Macker |
(1996) 49 Cal App.4th 1528 oo. cicceccesseseessecssesseseesseceeeaeessesssescesaeeaeeseesaeenesseseeesseaseaseaseacauseres
8
12
Wilshire Ins.Co. v. Tuff Boy Holding, Inc.
13 (2001) 86 Cal Ath 627 cic... ecccsccsrcarcnrensanennesshenissnstonssnsatensésrectenssonsenacconseeenenstneneaasenesanenesenenaes
11
14
15 Statutes
16 California Code of Civil Procedure
17 B37 oeeccscesscescceseceseeseessscessesnessecsaesssessessessesesscssecasegaeeceeessserseesueersaesceessuseseeesuscasecseseateassensesseestenses
2, 6
§ 339(1). eeeeecccececseeseesetsessesesessusesenseaecavaecesseseeseesesseceesesesrsaesascaseeseasseseeeaesseseaesaesesessessees 2,
6, 8,9
18 ABTC oocccccscccscesessssseseseaccescessessecsuccucanecsessarcaucaeeesecausessetcesaesaaaesuecaeecoeseeesaceeceuseneseeeseeseescnsceaeeaees
3,4
§ ABT CLL). ccccesceeceesecseescesensesseessessecaesaeceeceseceeseesecsesseseeeseeneeseneaeseaeeneseasestessessessesavarcauseeseeseeetees
3
19 BG eeeenncumnpcannuennnnnnanonnenonnaneinentininencantnnnnaaanmmmnanemasstntanbtbii
si sidbsilandiniibdenannanenonnunane
2, 3, 9, 10, 11
© BB. sececensniveceineucananvanenssnnnniianadineh
iNSSIEET UATBE rilennenneinivenensibeh
Kini
GRbSAS
5B KACSUCE
EARS a roreeaae 2,
3, 10
20
21
California Uniform Commercial Code
22
Do PLES
suronmnemennseitGi XDNAEA
SSA CEES US CESERE aR
SUSU VON VSS TE TENA LSS ORO OARS 2,5, 7,9
23 § 2725(2) sccsrscsnaxessmnamassmanaumnenenamnmmenere
rrr naneR sme ENR ERNST
Hn ERERRRTRR OT ETTERINIE 5,7
24
25
26
27
28
wiv-
OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx
OREGON SHEPHERD, LLC dba OREGON SHEPHERD, an Oregon Limited Liability
Company (hereafter “Oregon Shepherd”) submits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities
in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary
1e*)
Adjudication of Issues.
1 INTRODUCTION
|
This action arises from the construction of a dance studio in which natural wool insulation was
installed in the walls. Plaintiffs, Janene Bauhofer and Michael Johnson (hereafter “Plaintiffs”), allege
DD
the acl insulation became infested with moths:
NN
- Quincy McCourt, individually and dba McQuin Construction Management (hereafter
CO
“McCourt”) entered into a construction contract with Plaintiffs to build a dance studio on Plaintiffs’
oO
10 residential property a 580 Orchard Lane in Colfax, California. McCourt alleges itentered into a written
11 and oral contract with Oregon Shepherd for the purchase of wool insulation installed in the dance
vd studio. McCourt further alleges that Oregon Shepherd provided an express and implied warranty that -
13 the sid! infestation would be free from infestation by vermin, including moths, for a lifetime. After
14 completion of the dance studio, Plaintiffs experienced a moth infestation in the dance studio. Plaintiffs
15 notified McCourt of the infestation in June 2015. McCourt notified Oregon Shepherd of the infestation
16 in June 2015.
17 Plaintiffs filed aComplaint against McCourt and Oregon Shepherd on April 29, 2017. On»
18 August 30, 2017,.McCourt filed a Cross-Complaint against Oregon Shepherd for breach of contract,
19 restitution/unjust enrichment, implied contractual indemnity, equitable indemnity, breach of express
20 warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and declaratory relief re: indemnity
21 and contribution. Plaintiff entered into a settlement with Oregon Shepherd and, on May 17, 2018, the
22 Court issued an Order granting Oregon Shepherd’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.
23 The evidence presented in support of this motion demonstrates that McCourt did not enter into a
24 contract with Oregon Shepherd, that Oregon Shepherd did not make any express or implied warranties,
25 that McCourt’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that McCourt’s claims are barred by
26 the good faith settlement determination between Oregon Shepherd and Plaintiffs.
27 By this motion, Oregon Shepherd seeks entry of sunimary judgment against McCourt or,
28 alternatively, summary adjudication of the various causes of action alleged by McCourt on the grounds
«].
OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx
that there are no triable issues of material fact and under applicable law, McCourt isnot entitled to
judgment against Oregon Shepherd in this matter.
Il. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Oregon Shepherd brings thisMotion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary
Adjudication of Issues on the following grounds:
A. Breach of Contract
“sD
McCourt’s breach of contract cause of action fails as a matter of law. McCourt and Oregon
Shepherd did not enter into a written contract and McCourt’s claim for breach of oral contract is barred
by the applicable statute of limitations set forth in California Uniform Commercial Code § 2725 and/or
10 California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337 and 339(1).
11 B: Breachof Express Warranty
12 McCourt’s breach of express warranty cause of action lacks merit as Oregon Shepherd did not
13 make the express warranties as alleged by McCourt and fails as a matter of law as McCourt’s claim is
14 barred by the statute of limitations set forth in California Uniform Commercial Code § 2725.
15 Cc, Negligent Misrepresentation |
16 McCourt’s negligent misrepresentation cause of action fails as matter of law as itisbarred by
if the applicable statute of litigation set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure § 339(1).
18 D. Breach of Implied Warranty |
19 McCourt’s breach of implied warranty cause of action fails as a matter of law as itis barred by
20 the applicable statute of litigation set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure § 339(1) and/or
21 California Uniform Commercial Code § 2725.
22 E. Restitution/Unjust Enrichment
23 _McCourt’s restitution/unjust enrichment cause of action is barred by the Good Faith Settlement
24 Determination between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd as set forth in California Code of Civil
25 Procedure §§ 887 and 877.6.
\
26 F. Implied Contractual Indemnity
27 “McCourt’s implied contractual indemnity cause of action is barred by the Good Faith Settlement
28 Determination between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd as set forth in California Code of Civil
-2-
OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx
Procedure §§ 887 and 877.6.
G. Equitable Indemnity
McCourt’s equitable indemnity cause of action is barred by the Good Faith Settlement
Determination between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd as set forth in California Code of Civil
Procedure §§ 887 and 877.6. |
H. Declaratory Relief Regarding Contribution and Indemnity
McCourt’s declaratory relieffor contribution and indemnity cause of action isbarred by the
Good Faith Settlement Determination between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd as set forth inCalifornia
Code of Civil Procedure §§ 887 and 877.6.
10 Tl. LEGAL AUTHORITY
11 The summary judgment remedy in California is set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 437c,
12 which states that “any party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding ifitis
13 contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense.” Relief may be sought not only for
14 summary judgment, but also for summary adjudication, i.e.,to dispose of one or more causes of action,
15 affirmative defenses, claims for damages, or issues of duty within the action. California Code of Civil
16 Procedure § 437c(f)(1).
17 The purpose of summary judgment isto penetrate evasive language and adept pleading and to
18 determine, through supporting papers, the absence of triable issues of fact.Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn.
19 (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, as modified on denial of reh’g, (Dec. 1, 1899); Onciano v.Golden Palace
20 Restaurant, Inc. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 385. The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary
21 judgment isto delimit the scope of the issues, while the function of the affidavits or declarations isto
22 disclose whether there is any triable issue of act within the issues delimited by the pleadings. FP
23 Development, Inc. v.Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381.
24 A summary judgment motion requires a three-step analysis. First, the court identifies the issues
25 framed by the pleadings. Second, the court determines whether the moving party has established
26 foundational facts which negate the opponent’s claim, satisfy the evidentiary requirements, and justify a
27 judgment in itsfavor. Third, the court determines whether the opposition demonstrates the existence of
28 a triable issue of fact. AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1061.
. Js
OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERN. ATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx
Where a tort duty isinvolved, as in a negligence cause of action, a finding that a defendant does
not owe a duty tothe plaintiff may effectively terminate an action or aportion thereof and is thus
clearly an example of a proper subject of summary adjudication. J.L. v. Children's Institute, Inc, (2009)
177 Cal.App.4th 3 88, 396. A motion for summary judgment must be granted ifall the papers submitted
-
in support of the motion show that there are no triable issues as to any
Preview
J. STEPHANIE KRMPOTIC, SBN 128671 ELIZABETH I.STEWART, SBN 243049 CHRISTINA W. SUN, SBN 306762 LOW, BALL & LYNCH 505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 FILer Superior Court of Callfo Telephone: (415) 981-6630 . County of Placer rite rN Facsimile: (415) 982-1634 jskrmpotic@lowball.com NOV 13 2018 WN dake Chatters Attorneys for Cross-Defendant HD erties Officer & Clerk OREGON SHEPHERD, LLC dba OREGON +O. Lucatuorto, Deputy SHEPHERD, an Oregon Limited Liability Company YN oOo IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Oo 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 11 12 JANENE BAUHOFER and MICHAEL No. SCV0039397 JOHNSON, (Unlimited Jurisdiction) 13 Plaintiffs, 14 TrTwy TAY Vs. OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF 15 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT.OF QUINCY McCOURT, individually and dba MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN 16 DY McQUIN CONSTRUCTION THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY DY MANAGEMENT; OREGON SHEPHERD, ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 17 LLC dba OREGON SHEPHERD, an Oregon Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-50, 18 inclusive, Date: January 29, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. 19 Defendants. Dept: 40 20 Trial Date: § March 4, 2019 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 2] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MMPA.docx a TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) I. INTRODUCTION wo... cceecsesesesesssesesesevesevavsessescesusassssscassavacsseresesavecausasasavavasacsauevavacecevarsesses 1 TI SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........ccccscssssesssseseesesssesescsesessssesesesssssvsvessusasavasesesasarsssesavaveereesevavenes 2 Breach of Contract... .csescssessssssecsssssssssecsescsesssssssescassesesssveuseaseevavsceveasecerseseensavavsesavseeees Z a B. Breach of Express Warranty.....ccsccccscssssssccssesessescscsesecsesesescscsessssescececsssarseasavsvaueasessvasavsese Z SID war Cc. Negligent Misrepresentation spare TEBE idiidnanenveasesueceressuetrsuess Stirs ss GIeXNNESSIEUSAENERENE 2 D. Breach of Implied WAITTAMNLY....sssscssssessesssssssssssctssosnssonnosssnsssctsssessesssssnsensesseverseveeseasessasensssd E. Restitution/Unjust Pari biteth conncymrscmorve ssn RTA ARNENRENRERNTRENE RA ihthihainieanenncenaneenenway 2 F, Implied Contractual Indemnity ....0...ccceecccsseccssesecescseeseesseseseeesecscecersecsvsvscatscstuecesacavavanses 2 10 G. Equitable Indemnity .0...... ceeceeseeessceeeeees one e nOE OER eRe sineREO URaE Ney enRUR OOMENIEANORRERESNE 3 11 H. Declaratory Relief Regarding Contribution and Indemnity ...........cccccccesesesseseeseeeseereees 3 12 13 IV, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS sssssssssssnsssssssssassesarcansaiusncsttoteccecsoerenees 4 14 V. LEGAL ARGUMENT ..0...cecccecccsesesssessesessssesssseacseacsesessssassessesesseseeacaesassevaeresscassesutsusavenseeseavaree 4 15 A. McCourt’s Breach of Contract Cause of Action Fails as a Matter of Law .....ccceceeeeeee= 16 ie Me Co trt’s Alle pa G28 sassssees sssenssnssnxsiwsanaxszs0asiteone senerereccecansnsersnereargyegeyyexecuseesvntuney 4 17 as McCourt and Oregon Shepherd did not Enter into a Written Contract.........00...0... 5 18 a Any Alleged Written Contract is Barred by the Statute of Limitations................. 5 19 4. Any Alleged Oral Contract isBarred by the Statute of Limitations ......00000c00.. 6 20 B. McCourt’s Breach of Express Warranty Case of Action Fails as a Matter of Law............ 6 21 1. McCourt’s Allegations 20... ccc ccscecsesesseessecseessseesseeesecesessececesecerscseeessscsaseereeneeners 6 22 2. McCourt Fails to Establish that Oregon Shepherd Warranted that the Wood Insulation Would be Free From Infestation for aLifetime ........ ccc eeeeeeeesseees6 23 3 Any Alleged Express Warranty is Barred by the Statute of Limitations ............... 7 24 C, McCourt’s Negligent Misrepresentation Cause of Action Fails as a Matter of Law.........7 25 L MocCourt’s Allegations ...vcnsnsescorssronensenens neennnranananeannecnauscuesnensanacynevesaeennraeanneateoncane 7 26 2. Any Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation Cause of Action isBarred by the 27 Statute of Limitations sssssasvanseseceneceensnnanssecencesnasassesseesnnnnasussecseensanannusstsessensssnsnessssses 8 28 D. McCourt’s Breach of Implied Warranty Cause of Action Fails as aMatter of Law.........8 “ie OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES N:\1203\SFO840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) ie McCourt’s Allegations 00... cecscscesssseeceesscessessecsesessessesseseessesseseeceecsecanseseeseaseascaees 8 WN 2. Any Alleged Implied Warranty if Barred by the Statute of Limitations................8 Ww McCourt’s Restitution/Unjust Enrichment Cause of Action is Barred by the Good Faith Settlement Determination Between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd............c.0006 9 & 1. McCourt’s Allegations .......0.cee EA EA ESRB YISOWABSAA SRR TANSNATR hs Serene 9 A 2. McCourt’s Cause of Action for Restitution/Unjust Enrichment is Barred by DBD the Good Faith Settlement... seeeeccscseeseseeessesecesesecsceeesessecseeeeseesseatsseeeseeeseesaees 9 NS McCourt’s Implied Contractual Indemnity Cause of Action is Barred by the Good Faith Determination between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd..............c:ccccsecsessesserseeene 10 Oo 1. McCourt’s Allegations ........... aR aN ERIE RA SANTA b ib dha nimn end emcrnoeeennenere 10 Oo 10 2, McCourt’s Cause of Action for Implied Contractual Indemnity is Barred by theCioed Faith: Seti ler Gb scccnaruneseaeonsmeaecnnemansereanamenneenrannnemmsmaaiannmenccaats 10 11 McCourt’s Equitable Indemnity Cause of Action is Barred by the Good Faith 12 Determination Between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd .............ccccccssesesssessceesecnseeeeseees 11 13 i McCourt’s Allegations Sa AST GARE DEERE T CREnemenenanenenmenenmercemenprmgony ery11 14 2 McCourt’s Cause of Action for Equitable Indemnity is Barred by the Good Faith SCC SCN b ccsesncasssennsnsanccsnannasnannanvxamsennnavenniennnanane seantasassaNNRNNetoUt Bkenananannnnns 11 15 McCourt’s Declaratory Relief Regarding Indemnity and Contribution Cause of 16 Action isBarred by the Good Faith Determination Between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd ....cccecscecescesesscsesseesessessescssevsevesecseesersenrenseseeseseeseessesasesseeseesedseesaeaeveesessesneneenes 11 17 1. MecCourt’s Allegations .0......ccccccesecescecseccseesseesansesencaeessesesseseesseecseseessseasecseeaeegs 11 18 2. McCourt’s Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief is Barred by the Good 19 Fatty Sette iiihit. csssoneaves sas. s06-cdconeenenenenteh hhh SSCL AAAS nterennnnonemnnnnentnavedeneeneoness 11 20 VI. COIN LCTSIIIN iss. cen wens aR A Se ES RUA SE SI A RRR A rhe nds SHERSEEVEATA Dee 12 21 22 23 24 25 26 97 28 -Li- OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank (1986) 179 Cal. App.3d 1061 .....c.cccecccccscecesesesesseseereeses ja 1ohsanenreonssneusessessonsatsssesesseatacsoseeeeseecereeneaces 3 LP Angeles Chem. Co. v. Spencer & Jones (1996) WN 44 Cal. App.4th 112... cccsesssssssescssesssessucssssssessesssrssusssussssssssesasssessersesuesaesssessesseseeseen 6,8 DH Bay Develop., Ltd. v. Sup. Ct. (Home Capital Corp.) (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1012... eccesccscsssseststssssstsesacseseseseens see eh AA WINRAR ANIL romncemvervsenvsesinxanins,LO SIT Be v. Western Truck Exchange CO (1997) 55 Cal App.4th, 1139... cccccssesssssssesecsesccsescsssevsssusassustsassssusassesssseesssesvesseusecsteseveveevescecc. 9 eo Butcher v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2000) 77 Cal. App.4th 1442... cececcssesesseeseeseessesesssssesssessessesssraussusavsassasasssesacusesvarssaustsetsessecenseeeess 8 10 Campion v. Downey ll (1926) 77 Cal. App. 125... cssssssessssessesseseescssssssessssssssssssssssesvaseasassusscascesassvcarsussesutersesessesusecerenseces 5 12 CDF Firefighters vs. Maldonado (2008) 158 Cal. App.4th 1226..........cscssssssssnsscssesessersssnscnessenssnscnesasesccossesesssssssssnsssssssesrenseuscasenereneeD 13 Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specifically Ins. Co. 14 (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189... ccccscsccsecrecssssessesssssessssesesesssscscacsescecscsecsvasseseersesseseessurscseaesesscevecsenscasece 5 15 County of San Bernardino v. Walsh (2007) 158 Cal. App.4th 533.0. scesessestseessseessseevescssessssensesessesscsnessessusseseseevsassesssersusassesacesesD 16 Daugher v. Ford Motor Co. 17 (2015) 238 Cal App.4th 905... cccsscsssssscsssescsssesescoeeacssessssssssscsessudsassavacavavacsesevasacatsessusvassvacueaves 7 18 Davis v. Sallie Mae, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1086... ccccscsccecsescescsesecssseesssescsacsssessvecsecacsessvasearsevacassasavsevaveceucavenes 5 19 E-Fab, Inc. V. Accountants, Inc. Services 20 (2007) 153 Cal. App.4th 1308.0... ccecsssseeseseesesseeecsseeesseeeees eee nanan 8 21 F.D.LC. v. Dintino 3 . (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 333 oo cecccccecssssessssessesesesseceneseseessessesecsesesssessesecaceeserseavessasasesegaceucareasanes 9 22 Far West Financial Corp. v.D&S Co. 23 (IDES) 46) Cal 3d TG 2 mecersovengencd nor weesesnesnarecrneeanennen enceanismsanOevaSSSNNAS ROSSTADEAURA ORGSE ARERSTNTeran 11 24 FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima . (1991) 231 Cal. App.3d 367... ececcccccscsesscsesssesscsesssscsscsessesessescescssseceesececeusecscescassssatacaevacaeneessaranes 3 2 Fundin v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company 26 — CORA) VEZ CALADD SOS wcssasascnmaenamcnsuaasnnntncsthdscsmnceenentasnnarsavarunanccannnger eps vientgevennenwvereyreessterne 8 27 J.L. v. Children's Institute,Inc. (2009) 177 Cal. App.4th 388 oc. cccccsccssscssssssesscsscssecsscaeesnevasesscnessscssesucsucaseusscsscsasseceuceuvensasecaceeeas 4 28 -iii- OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\M SJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx ~ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Keith v. Buchanan (1985) 173 Cal. App.3d 13 ..cccccccescsessessessessessecsssseecsessesesenessessescssessessecsassassssesssasseseesseceessersess a ‘| Levin v. Blue Shield of California (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1117... cecssesscssssecsessecsssseessesssssscessesecsecsecessesecsevseessasssersersetsesessstaserees 9 Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, as modifiedon denial of reh’g, (Dec. 1,1899) .....eeeessessessessessnsserseseenee 3 DD Onciano v. Golden Palace Restaurant, Inc. : (1990) 219 Cal AQP .30 985 cccancsmmsccumeswuraesnmuunvanaienesnsnnsvada addisaduitssniasksedéaanssannenostreeaunensasmonvancepeass 3 NN Spear v. Cal State Automobile Ass’n Co (1993) 2 Cal AT 103 5 vcsncsccccexcnnassxonsixcensnsssxancesmeaweesuniane siansteesinds suv eaNRSARONRCRAGTIIASLiamavwennaneeenvemsane 6, 8 oOo Tanenbaum Textile Co. v. Schlanger ; 10 (1942) 287 N.Y. 400... cee ececceecesceeceecerecoeeeeevsrccnecesessecsesesseseaseesesesseseeseasessesensesusesuseateuessessesaeeas 5 11 Ventura County Nat. Bank v. Macker | (1996) 49 Cal App.4th 1528 oo. cicceccesseseessecssesseseesseceeeaeessesssescesaeeaeeseesaeenesseseeesseaseaseaseacauseres 8 12 Wilshire Ins.Co. v. Tuff Boy Holding, Inc. 13 (2001) 86 Cal Ath 627 cic... ecccsccsrcarcnrensanennesshenissnstonssnsatensésrectenssonsenacconseeenenstneneaasenesanenesenenaes 11 14 15 Statutes 16 California Code of Civil Procedure 17 B37 oeeccscesscescceseceseeseessscessesnessecsaesssessessessesesscssecasegaeeceeessserseesueersaesceessuseseeesuscasecseseateassensesseestenses 2, 6 § 339(1). eeeeecccececseeseesetsessesesessusesenseaecavaecesseseeseesesseceesesesrsaesascaseeseasseseeeaesseseaesaesesessessees 2, 6, 8,9 18 ABTC oocccccscccscesessssseseseaccescessessecsuccucanecsessarcaucaeeesecausessetcesaesaaaesuecaeecoeseeesaceeceuseneseeeseeseescnsceaeeaees 3,4 § ABT CLL). ccccesceeceesecseescesensesseessessecaesaeceeceseceeseesecsesseseeeseeneeseneaeseaeeneseasestessessessesavarcauseeseeseeetees 3 19 BG eeeenncumnpcannuennnnnnanonnenonnaneinentininencantnnnnaaanmmmnanemasstntanbtbii si sidbsilandiniibdenannanenonnunane 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 © BB. sececensniveceineucananvanenssnnnniianadineh iNSSIEET UATBE rilennenneinivenensibeh Kini GRbSAS 5B KACSUCE EARS a roreeaae 2, 3, 10 20 21 California Uniform Commercial Code 22 Do PLES suronmnemennseitGi XDNAEA SSA CEES US CESERE aR SUSU VON VSS TE TENA LSS ORO OARS 2,5, 7,9 23 § 2725(2) sccsrscsnaxessmnamassmanaumnenenamnmmenere rrr naneR sme ENR ERNST Hn ERERRRTRR OT ETTERINIE 5,7 24 25 26 27 28 wiv- OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx OREGON SHEPHERD, LLC dba OREGON SHEPHERD, an Oregon Limited Liability Company (hereafter “Oregon Shepherd”) submits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary 1e*) Adjudication of Issues. 1 INTRODUCTION | This action arises from the construction of a dance studio in which natural wool insulation was installed in the walls. Plaintiffs, Janene Bauhofer and Michael Johnson (hereafter “Plaintiffs”), allege DD the acl insulation became infested with moths: NN - Quincy McCourt, individually and dba McQuin Construction Management (hereafter CO “McCourt”) entered into a construction contract with Plaintiffs to build a dance studio on Plaintiffs’ oO 10 residential property a 580 Orchard Lane in Colfax, California. McCourt alleges itentered into a written 11 and oral contract with Oregon Shepherd for the purchase of wool insulation installed in the dance vd studio. McCourt further alleges that Oregon Shepherd provided an express and implied warranty that - 13 the sid! infestation would be free from infestation by vermin, including moths, for a lifetime. After 14 completion of the dance studio, Plaintiffs experienced a moth infestation in the dance studio. Plaintiffs 15 notified McCourt of the infestation in June 2015. McCourt notified Oregon Shepherd of the infestation 16 in June 2015. 17 Plaintiffs filed aComplaint against McCourt and Oregon Shepherd on April 29, 2017. On» 18 August 30, 2017,.McCourt filed a Cross-Complaint against Oregon Shepherd for breach of contract, 19 restitution/unjust enrichment, implied contractual indemnity, equitable indemnity, breach of express 20 warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and declaratory relief re: indemnity 21 and contribution. Plaintiff entered into a settlement with Oregon Shepherd and, on May 17, 2018, the 22 Court issued an Order granting Oregon Shepherd’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. 23 The evidence presented in support of this motion demonstrates that McCourt did not enter into a 24 contract with Oregon Shepherd, that Oregon Shepherd did not make any express or implied warranties, 25 that McCourt’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that McCourt’s claims are barred by 26 the good faith settlement determination between Oregon Shepherd and Plaintiffs. 27 By this motion, Oregon Shepherd seeks entry of sunimary judgment against McCourt or, 28 alternatively, summary adjudication of the various causes of action alleged by McCourt on the grounds «]. OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx that there are no triable issues of material fact and under applicable law, McCourt isnot entitled to judgment against Oregon Shepherd in this matter. Il. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Oregon Shepherd brings thisMotion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues on the following grounds: A. Breach of Contract “sD McCourt’s breach of contract cause of action fails as a matter of law. McCourt and Oregon Shepherd did not enter into a written contract and McCourt’s claim for breach of oral contract is barred by the applicable statute of limitations set forth in California Uniform Commercial Code § 2725 and/or 10 California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337 and 339(1). 11 B: Breachof Express Warranty 12 McCourt’s breach of express warranty cause of action lacks merit as Oregon Shepherd did not 13 make the express warranties as alleged by McCourt and fails as a matter of law as McCourt’s claim is 14 barred by the statute of limitations set forth in California Uniform Commercial Code § 2725. 15 Cc, Negligent Misrepresentation | 16 McCourt’s negligent misrepresentation cause of action fails as matter of law as itisbarred by if the applicable statute of litigation set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure § 339(1). 18 D. Breach of Implied Warranty | 19 McCourt’s breach of implied warranty cause of action fails as a matter of law as itis barred by 20 the applicable statute of litigation set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure § 339(1) and/or 21 California Uniform Commercial Code § 2725. 22 E. Restitution/Unjust Enrichment 23 _McCourt’s restitution/unjust enrichment cause of action is barred by the Good Faith Settlement 24 Determination between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd as set forth in California Code of Civil 25 Procedure §§ 887 and 877.6. \ 26 F. Implied Contractual Indemnity 27 “McCourt’s implied contractual indemnity cause of action is barred by the Good Faith Settlement 28 Determination between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd as set forth in California Code of Civil -2- OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx Procedure §§ 887 and 877.6. G. Equitable Indemnity McCourt’s equitable indemnity cause of action is barred by the Good Faith Settlement Determination between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 887 and 877.6. | H. Declaratory Relief Regarding Contribution and Indemnity McCourt’s declaratory relieffor contribution and indemnity cause of action isbarred by the Good Faith Settlement Determination between Plaintiffs and Oregon Shepherd as set forth inCalifornia Code of Civil Procedure §§ 887 and 877.6. 10 Tl. LEGAL AUTHORITY 11 The summary judgment remedy in California is set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 437c, 12 which states that “any party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding ifitis 13 contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense.” Relief may be sought not only for 14 summary judgment, but also for summary adjudication, i.e.,to dispose of one or more causes of action, 15 affirmative defenses, claims for damages, or issues of duty within the action. California Code of Civil 16 Procedure § 437c(f)(1). 17 The purpose of summary judgment isto penetrate evasive language and adept pleading and to 18 determine, through supporting papers, the absence of triable issues of fact.Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. 19 (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, as modified on denial of reh’g, (Dec. 1, 1899); Onciano v.Golden Palace 20 Restaurant, Inc. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 385. The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary 21 judgment isto delimit the scope of the issues, while the function of the affidavits or declarations isto 22 disclose whether there is any triable issue of act within the issues delimited by the pleadings. FP 23 Development, Inc. v.Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381. 24 A summary judgment motion requires a three-step analysis. First, the court identifies the issues 25 framed by the pleadings. Second, the court determines whether the moving party has established 26 foundational facts which negate the opponent’s claim, satisfy the evidentiary requirements, and justify a 27 judgment in itsfavor. Third, the court determines whether the opposition demonstrates the existence of 28 a triable issue of fact. AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1061. . Js OREGON SHEPHERD’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERN. ATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES N:\1203\SF0840\Pleadings\MSJ\Drafts\MSJ-Final\MPA.docx Where a tort duty isinvolved, as in a negligence cause of action, a finding that a defendant does not owe a duty tothe plaintiff may effectively terminate an action or aportion thereof and is thus clearly an example of a proper subject of summary adjudication. J.L. v. Children's Institute, Inc, (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 3 88, 396. A motion for summary judgment must be granted ifall the papers submitted - in support of the motion show that there are no triable issues as to any