DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
20-01159610·orange·Civil·Consumer Warranty
Hearing about 2 months agoNO TENTATIVE RULING

Stoddard vs. Kia Motors America, Inc.

Motion for Attorney Fees; Motion to Strike or Tax Costs; Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

Hearing date
Jun 26, 2026
Department
C16
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Attorney Fees rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffStoddard
DefendantKia Motors America, Inc.

Ruling

56 Stoddard vs. Kia Motors America, Inc.

20-01159610 Motion for Attorney Fees, Motion to Strike or Tax Costs, & Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

NO TENTATIVE RULING – Parties to appear on Zoom or in-person.

57 Monteiro vs. BMW of North America, LLC

24-01439792 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Defendant BMW of North America, LLC (“BMW”)’s motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Briana Monteiro is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.

Evidentiary Objection

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objection to Grube Declaration ¶ 8 is OVERRULED.

General Legal Authority

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(c), a summary judgment motion shall be granted if all the papers submitted show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A defendant meets its burden on summary judgment by showing that the plaintiff cannot prove its causes of action, or by establishing a complete defense to the plaintiff’s causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c(p)(2).) If a defendant does not meet this initial burden, the plaintiff need not oppose the motion and the motion must be denied. (Binder v.

Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.) If the defendant meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-851.)

The nonmoving party must present substantial evidence in order to avoid summary judgment. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 163.) “In some instances . . ., ‘evidence may be so lacking in probative value that it fails to raise any triable issue.’” (Whitmire v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1083-1084, quoting Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Great American Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 791, 795.) “‘If the plaintiff is unable to meet her burden of proof regarding an essential element of her case, all other facts are rendered immaterial.’” (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780, quoting Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 482.)

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, “the court must ‘consider all of the evidence’ and ‘all’ of the ‘inferences’ reasonably drawn therefrom, and must view such evidence and such inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843, citations omitted.) Courts “’construe the moving party's affidavits strictly, construe the opponent’s affidavits liberally, and resolve doubts about the propriety of granting the motion in favor of the party opposing it.’” (Unilab Corp. v. Angeles-IPA (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 622, 636, quoting Seo v. All– Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1201–1202.) A court may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence on a motion for

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share