SARHAL vs DEVI

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

25CV017241: SARHAL vs DEVI 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16D

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Nadia Sarhal’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

In this action, Plaintiff alleges causes of action against Defendant Veena Devi for “negligence-property damage”, “negligent operation of a motor vehicle”, “negligent entrustment,” and “diminished value of property.” Plaintiff alleges that her vehicle was damaged when Defendant’s vehicle collided with it.

Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment on her complaint.

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication the Court engages in a three-step process.

Because a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings. The Court cannot consider an unpleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v.

Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.) Indeed, it has often been noted that '[i]t would be patently unfair to allow plaintiffs to defeat UCI's summary judgment motion by allowing them to present a “moving target” unbounded by the pleadings.' (Melican v. Regents of University of California, (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 168, 176-177.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV017241: SARHAL vs DEVI 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16D

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A plaintiff moving for summary judgment meets its burden of showing that there is no defense to its cause of action by proving each element of its cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) It is no longer required also to disprove any defense asserted by the defendant. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2008) ¶ 10:235, p. 10-89 (rev. # 1, 2006) [when plaintiff moves for summary judgment “[u]nlike former law, it is not plaintiff’s initial burden to disprove affirmative defenses and cross-complaints asserted by defendant”].)

If the plaintiff does so, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of fact exists as to that cause of action or defense. In doing so, the defendant cannot rely on the mere allegations or denial of its pleadings, “but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) A triable issue of material fact exists “if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. [fn. omitted.]” (Aguilar v.

Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal. 4th at 850.)

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p); see, generally Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 322, 326-327.) In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 843.)

While a summary adjudication motion is treated largely the same as one for summary judgment, there are a few important differences. One of these differences is found in CRC Rule 3.1350(b), which mandates that issues presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and repeated verbatim in the separate statement. Another difference is that summary adjudication cannot be granted unless it “completely disposes” of a cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for punitive damages, or question of duty. Code of Civil Procedure §437c(f)(1) provides in its entirety:

A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for [punitive] damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV017241: SARHAL vs DEVI 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16D

completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for [punitive] damages, or an issue of duty.

Finally, before turning to the specific issues raised by this motion and the oppositions, the Court reminds the parties of the “Golden Rule” of summary judgment/adjudication: “If it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.” (See, Zimmerman, Rosenfeld v. Larson (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1477 (italics in original).) Moreover, according to Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, a moving party’s inclusion of facts in its separate statement effectively concedes each fact’s “materiality,” whether intended or not, and if there is a triable dispute relating to any one of these facts, the motion must be denied. (Nazir, at 252 (citing Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, Ch.10:95.1).)

Multiple Separate Statements

At the outset, the Court must note that Plaintiff filed four different separate statements in support of the motion. The first separate statement was filed on October 13, 2025, and contains four material facts. The second separate statement was filed on November 18, 2025, and is titled “Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts.” That document purports to add undisputed material facts 20-29 to the original separate statement. On December 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed a third document titled “Second Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts.” This document purports to add undisputed material facts 8, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 23, and 25.

On April 14, 2026, Plaintiff filed a fourth document titled “Consolidated Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” In this document, Plaintiff sets forth 29 undisputed material facts. Defendant has objected to this document as untimely and that objection is sustained. “Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 81 days before the time appointed for hearing.” (CCP § 437c(a)(2) [emphasis added].) The “Consolidated Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment” was served on April 14, 2026, twenty-three days before the hearing and only three days before Defendant’s opposition was due.

As a result, the only separate statements that can be considered by the Court on this motion are the ones filed on October 13, 2025, November 18, 2025, and December 9, 2025. To that end, the first separate statement, appears to have four material facts, the “Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” purports to add material facts 20-29, although there are no material facts labeled 5-19 in the first separate statement. Finally, the “Second Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” purports to add material facts 8, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 23, and 25 and indicates that no facts are repeated from the previous separate statements.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV017241: SARHAL vs DEVI 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16D

However, the “Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” purported to add material facts 20-29 while the “Second Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” added 21, 23, and 25. Additionally, a cursory review of the “Second Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” and the “Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” reveals that material facts 21, 23, and 25 are different in each of the separate statements. Moreover, there are no material facts 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15, 16, or 19 in any of the three versions of the separate statements despite the fact that Plaintiff indicates that there were a total of 29 material facts.

Perhaps more critically, Plaintiff’s notice of motion states that the motion is based only on the “Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” and contains no reference to either the “Second Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” or the “Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts.” The only document titled “Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” was filed on October 13, 2025. Thus, the notice of motion, which controls, means that neither the “Second Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” nor the “Supplemental Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” are part of the instant motion.

Summary Adjudication

According to some portions of her moving papers, Plaintiff does not appear to have intended to move for summary adjudication as she titled the motion one only for “summary judgment” and also only discussed summary judgment in her two-page memorandum of points and authorities. However, Plaintiff’s notice of motion inconsistently states that Plaintiff is moving “for an order granting summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, on the grounds that there is no triable issue of material fact and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Not. 1:21-23.)

As to the alternative request for summary adjudication, Plaintiff failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(b). Plaintiff’s notice of motion requests summary adjudication but does not identify any cause of action and does not state the grounds upon which summary adjudication is sought as to each cause of action. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(b) which expressly requires that “the specific cause of action ” presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and repeated verbatim in the separate statement.

Here, Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion does not actually or explicitly set forth any specific cause of action for summary adjudication, nor does the moving separate statement set forth any specific cause of action on which summary adjudication is sought, much less comply with the verbatim requirement. For the first time in reply, Plaintiff argues that alternatively, the Court should grant summary adjudication as to “liability and causation.” (Rep. 4:16-17.) Not only did Plaintiff not properly notice a motion for summary adjudication, but summary adjudication cannot be sought on “liability and causation.” “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV017241: SARHAL vs DEVI 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16D

only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (CCP § 437c(f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication by a plaintiff on an issue of liability or causation would not dispose of a cause of action.

Because Plaintiff failed to properly notice its alternative motion for summary adjudication, summary adjudication shall be denied and this leaves for the Court’s consideration only Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff Failed to Meet Her Initial Burden

Here, regardless of which separate statement (or how many of them) the Court considered in analyzing the motion -- and the Court can only properly consider the document filed on October 13, 2025 -- Plaintiff has entirely failed to demonstrate that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her complaint. To that end, Plaintiff’s mere two-page memorandum of points and authorities does not discuss a single cause of action in her complaint and fails to provide any argument as to how her evidence establishes the elements of the causes of action.

Even in her reply Plaintiff does not discuss the causes of action in her complaint. As set forth above, there are four causes of action in the complaint. Thus, in order to obtain summary judgment on her complaint, Plaintiff was required to demonstrate that she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all four causes of action in her complaint. By failing to discuss any cause of action, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her complaint. As a result, Plaintiff failed to meet her burden on this motion and the burden never shifted to Defendant to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact.

On this basis alone, the motion for summary judgment must be denied.

While the Court need not proceed any further, Plaintiff’s reply concedes the existence of a triable issue of material fact. Indeed, she concedes that Defendant produced evidence which raises a dispute with respect to damages. (Rep. 1:16-20, 3:17-21.) Plaintiff concedes that “[a] disagreement between experts as to valuation does not eliminate liability; it merely frames a damages dispute.” (Rep. 3:20-21 [emphasis added].) Plaintiff has confirmed that there is a dispute as to damages, which is an element of any claim Plaintiff asserts in this action and thereby precludes summary judgment.

More specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the diminished value of the vehicle is $30,874.53 based solely upon the original purchase price of the vehicle as compared to one purchase offer made by CarMax when Plaintiff attempted to sell the vehicle in October 2024. By contrast, Defendant’s expert declares that the diminished value of the subject vehicle is $2,190. (Thomas Decl. ¶ 6.) As a result, the motion is also denied on the basis that at least one triable issue of material fact exists.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV017241: SARHAL vs DEVI 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 16D

The Court need not rule on Defendant’s evidentiary objections. The Court is not required to rule on objections to evidence that are not material to the disposition of the motion. (CCP § 437c(q).)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.