Defendant Maval’s motion for summary judgment/adjudication (with joinder by co-defendant Classic Performance.) Motion denied.
To the extent Moving Parties seek summary adjudication the motion is denied as Moving Parties Separate Statement is not in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(b) [“If summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b)]
With respect to the motion for summary judgment, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the rack and pinion steering mechanism was defective at the time of the subject accident and as to whether plaintiff is guilty of spoliation of evidence. (See UMFs 16, 17, 19 and 20.) The mere fact that the rack and pinio