Tentative Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication: Defendant, Voorwood Company (hereinafter “Voorwood) moves for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication as to each of the remaining causes of action alleged by Plaintiff, Daniel Haas (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that 1) Plaintiff’s Response to Voorwood’s Separate Statement and 2) Plaintiff’s Objections to Voorwood’s Evidence do not comply with the California Rules of Court. Failure to strictly adhere to these procedural format rules increased the time required by the Court to review this motion, however, the Court was ultimately able to discern what evidence was offered by each party and what objections were being asserted as to that evidence. The interests of justice do not justify the Court disregarding any of the Plaintiff’s opposition papers on the basis of Rule of Court non-compliance as asserted by Voorwood. The Court exercises its d
Hearing Date
February 20, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Tentative Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication: Defendant, Voorwood Company (hereinafter “Voorwood) moves for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication as to each of the remaining causes of action alleged by Plaintiff, Daniel Haas (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that 1) Plaintiff’s Response to Voorwood’s Separate Statement and 2) Plaintiff’s Objections to Voorwood’s Evidence do not comply with the California Rules of Court. Failure to strictly adhere to these procedural format rules increased the time required by the Court to review this motion, however, the Court was ultimately able to discern what evidence was offered by each party and what objections were being asserted as to that evidence. The interests of justice do not justify the Court disregarding any of the Plaintiff’s opposition papers on the basis of Rule of Court non-compliance as asserted by Voorwood. The Court exercises its d