Defendant Staff Pro, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
The court first addresses the procedural issues. Plaintiff fails to include a complete proof of service showing service of its opposing papers on Staff Pro as required under CCP § 1005(b). The Proof of Service attached to Plaintiff's opposing separate statement identifying the documents served as "Opposition to Summary Judgment" is insufficient to show service of the three filings comprising Plaintiff's opposition ("Opposition to Defendant's/Cross-Complainants Motion for Summary Judgment" [ROA 229]; "Separate Statement of Disputed Material Facts in Opposition to Defendant's/Cross-Complainants Motion for Summary Judgment" [ROA 231]; "Declaration of Maria C. Ramirez in Support of Opposition to Defendant's/Cross-Complainants Motion for Summary Judgment" [ROA 230]). Counsel for Staff Pro submits a declaration stating that Staff Pro was not served with Plaintiff's opposing papers; counsel for Staff Pro requested a copy of
Hearing Date
September 29, 2020
Category
Civil - Unlimited
Type
Breach of Contract/Warranty
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendant Staff Pro, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
The court first addresses the procedural issues. Plaintiff fails to include a complete proof of service showing service of its opposing papers on Staff Pro as required under CCP § 1005(b). The Proof of Service attached to Plaintiff's opposing separate statement identifying the documents served as "Opposition to Summary Judgment" is insufficient to show service of the three filings comprising Plaintiff's opposition ("Opposition to Defendant's/Cross-Complainants Motion for Summary Judgment" [ROA 229]; "Separate Statement of Disputed Material Facts in Opposition to Defendant's/Cross-Complainants Motion for Summary Judgment" [ROA 231]; "Declaration of Maria C. Ramirez in Support of Opposition to Defendant's/Cross-Complainants Motion for Summary Judgment" [ROA 230]). Counsel for Staff Pro submits a declaration stating that Staff Pro was not served with Plaintiff's opposing papers; counsel for Staff Pro requested a copy of