Madrigal vs 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.

1) Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication
2) Status Conference
Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, for summary adjudication of issues, is DENIED.
Preliminary Issues
First, Defendant’s 05/09/16 unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Second, the Court declines to rule on Defendant’s 07/20/16 objections. “[T]he court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion.” (CCP § 437c(q).) Here, none of the objections are directed to evidence pertaining to the wage statement claim which is the basis of the court’s ruling. Third, the Court did not consider Defendant’s 07/20/16 “Separate Statement Reconciling Evidence Proffered in Support of, and in Opposition to, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.” There is no provision in CCP § 437c or California Rule of Court (CRC) 3.1350 for a reply or responsive separate statement. (Nazir v. United........