Consolidated cases:
Superior Court Case No. Case No: 15 CECG 03742 and
related Cross-Actions
Motions: (1) By Graham Concrete Construction Co. for summary
Judgment as to the Complaint and Cross-Complaint of Cemex
(2) Summary adjudication by Wathen-Castanos as to the Cross-
Complaint against Graham
Tentative Ruling:
To deny the motions for summary judgment on the grounds that the moving party has not met its burden of proof pursuant to CCP § 437c(p)(2). Thus, it is not necessary to examine the opposition or the reply. See Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468. It is not necessary to rule on the objections. A triable issue of material fact exists as to whether the action is time barred. [Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1390, 140]
To deny the motion for summary adjudication on the grounds that the moving party has not met its burden of proof pursuant to CCP § 437c(p)(2). Thus, it is not necessary to examine the opposition or the reply. See C
Hearing Date
July 05, 2017
Type
26 Unlimited - Other Real Property
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Consolidated cases:
Superior Court Case No. Case No: 15 CECG 03742 and
related Cross-Actions
Motions: (1) By Graham Concrete Construction Co. for summary
Judgment as to the Complaint and Cross-Complaint of Cemex
(2) Summary adjudication by Wathen-Castanos as to the Cross-
Complaint against Graham
Tentative Ruling:
To deny the motions for summary judgment on the grounds that the moving party has not met its burden of proof pursuant to CCP § 437c(p)(2). Thus, it is not necessary to examine the opposition or the reply. See Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468. It is not necessary to rule on the objections. A triable issue of material fact exists as to whether the action is time barred. [Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1390, 140]
To deny the motion for summary adjudication on the grounds that the moving party has not met its burden of proof pursuant to CCP § 437c(p)(2). Thus, it is not necessary to examine the opposition or the reply. See C