LINDER vs DALTON, et al.

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 09/25/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf. 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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: *** The Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving defendant’s service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 5/7/2024, despite being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure “forthwith.” Moving defendant is directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***

The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Sacramento Superior Court’s Local Rule 1.06, instead incorrectly referring to the Local Rules of Placer County Superior Court. Moving counsel is directed to contact plaintiff and advise him of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact plaintiff prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 09/25/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 53

Defendant Dalton’s motion for summary adjudication of plaintiff in pro per Linder’s claim for punitive damages is ruled upon as follows.

Moving counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(b) and (h), requiring that issues presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and repeated verbatim in the separate statement.

Moving counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

Factual Background

This action arises from a motor vehicle-pedestrian accident occurring on 3/21/2022. In the complaint filed on 3/20/2024, plaintiff in pro per Linder purports to assert causes of action for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence and an unspecified intentional tort, with the latter alleging that defendant Dalton “must have been speeding” and “must have been intoxicated.” The complaint includes a prayer for punitive damages. Trial is currently set for 6/8/2026.

Moving Papers. Defendant Dalton now moves for summary adjudication of plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages on the grounds there is no evidence showing that defendant Dalton engaged in any conduct which could be construed as willful misconduct, malice, fraud or oppression so as to support an award of punitive damages. More specifically, the moving papers concede the complaint alleges defendant Dalton “must have been speeding” and “must have been intoxicated” but contend plaintiff actually has no evidence, much less “clear and convincing” evidence, to support a finding that defendant Dalton actually acted with malice, fraud or oppression so as to show an extreme indifference to plaintiff’s rights and to warrant the imposition of punitive damages.

Defendant primarily relies on plaintiff’s own deposition testimony to the effect he currently has no evidence defendant Dalton was intoxicated at the time of the subject accident. In support of this motion, defendant offers Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) Nos. 1-8 but the Court notes that UMF No. 8 is the only one supported by relevant, admissible evidence.

Opposition. The Court finds no opposition papers filed by plaintiff in pro per.

Legal Standard for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court engages in a three-step process. First, the issues framed by the pleadings must be identified since the pleadings themselves define the scope of what may be addressed via a motion for summary judgment (FPI Development Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382) and the 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. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to such a motion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 09/25/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 53

may not create triable issues beyond the scope of the pleadings, nor are they a substitute for filing amended pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its initial burden of production. A defendant moving for summary judgment “bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that [the defendant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; Chavez v. Glock, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1301.) This burden may be met by establishing either that one or more elements of a cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ.

Proc. §437c(p)(2).) A defendant cannot successfully shift the burden to a plaintiff by merely suggesting the possibility that the latter cannot prove his/her case but must make “an affirmative showing” in support of its motion. (Addy v. Bliss & Glennon (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 205, 214.) If a plaintiff pleads several theories of liability against the defendant, then the latter has the burden of demonstrating there are no material facts requiring trial on any of them. A moving defendant whose evidence omits facts as to any theory of liability effectively permits that portion of the complaint to be unchallenged and even where no opposition is presented, a moving defendant must still make a showing sufficient to eliminate all triable issues of fact. (Wright v.

Stang Manufacturing Co. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1228; see also Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 397.)

A plaintiff opposing summary judgment has no evidentiary burden unless the moving defendant has first met its initial burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840; see also Rubenstein v. Rubenstein (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1151-1152; Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1085-1086.) If a moving defendant has met its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to show the existence of a material factual issue as to the cause of action alleged or the defense to it. (Code Civ.

Proc. §437c(p)(2); see also, Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 322, 326-327.) Only where the moving defendant makes the requisite initial showing does a court need to examine the opposition papers to determine if the latter demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Salazar v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1376; Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.) The opposing party must present admissible evidence and may not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleading. (Id.)

In ruling on the motion, a court must construe the evidence of the opposing party liberally and that of the moving party strictly, resolving any doubts in the opposing party’s favor. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 843; Cortez v. Vogt (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 917, 925-926; Miller v. Bechtel Corp. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 868, 874; see also, Salazar v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1376; Brown v. FSR Brokerage, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 766, 773.)

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 California Rules of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 09/25/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 53

Court, Rule 3.1350(b), which mandates that each issue 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 completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for [punitive] damages, or an issue of duty. (Underline added for emphasis.)

Finally, 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).)

Discussion

The threshold question here is whether the moving papers are sufficient to satisfy defendant Dalton’s initial burden of production under Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)(2) with respect to plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes defendant Dalton has failed to carry his initial burden and thus, summary adjudication must be denied regardless of whether plaintiff has presented evidence showing the existence of a triable issue of material fact.

First, as noted above, defendant Dalton failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1350(b) and (h), requiring that each issue presented for summary adjudication be stated in the notice of motion and repeated verbatim in the separate statement. As specifically indicated in Code of Civil Procedure §437c(b)(1),”failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.” Thus, this deficiency alone warrants denial of defendant’s motion and the Court denies the motion on this ground. While the Court need not proceed further, it will do so to demonstrate additional separate and independent grounds which also warrant denial of this motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 09/25/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 53

Second, the sole support offered for defendant’s UMF Nos. 1-6 is either plaintiff’s unverified complaint (UMF 1-5) and defendant’s own unverified answer (UMF 6). However, defendant’s reliance on these unverified pleadings is insufficient as Code of Civil Procedure §437c(b)(1) specifically requires the motion be “supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken.” To the extent that defendant intended to rely upon plaintiff’s unverified allegations in his complaint by way of the doctrine of judicial admission, defendant provides no explanation as to how such doctrine is satisfied here and thus, fails to satisfy his burden in this regard.

Also, defendant’s reliance upon his own answer to support the assertion in UMF 6 as to when defendant filed his answer and he therein denied all allegations, such pleading must be supplied through a proper request for judicial notice in conformity with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1113(l) and Rule 3.1306(c). In any event, because UMF Nos. 1-6 are not properly supported by competent, admissible evidence in the form of “affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions,” etc., this Court holds that defendant has failed to carry his initial burden of production with respect to UMF Nos. 1-6 and this constitutes an independent basis for denial of this motion regardless of whether plaintiff has filed an opposition or presented evidence creating a triable issue of material fact.

Again, although the Court need not proceed further, it does so only to identify additional reasons why summary adjudication cannot be granted.

Third, the Court finds that plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages does not rest solely on the question of whether defendant Dalton was “intoxicated” at the time of the subject accident. Instead, the complaint here also specifically alleges that defendant Dalton “must have been speeding” at the time of the subject accident and if proven at trial, this too could potentially support an award of punitive damages insofar as a reasonable factfinder could conclude that driving at an excessive speed amounts to the malice, fraud and/or oppression required to justify an award of punitive damages.

However, none of the eight (8) UMFs proffered in the moving papers address this allegation of speeding or otherwise suggest that plaintiff has no evidence to support this allegation of defendant’s speeding. Similarly, none of the UMFs affirmatively show that defendant Dalton was not speeding at the time of the subject accident. Because the moving papers fails to adequately address all of the potential bases for an award of punitive damages in this case (see, e.g., Wright v. Stang Manufacturing Co., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at 1228 [defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication must address all theories of liability], the instant motion for summary adjudication must be denied.

This provides yet another independent basis for denial of this motion.

Fourth, even if the availability of punitive damages in this case had been based solely on the question of whether defendant Dalton was “intoxicated” at the time of the subject accident (which it is not), this Court holds that the moving papers are insufficient to satisfy defendant Dalton’s initial burden of production under Code of Civil Procedure §437c(p)(2). While UMF 8 relies on plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he, as of the date of his deposition, has no evidence to show defendant Dalton was intoxicated, this is still not enough to justify summary

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 09/25/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 53

adjudication of the punitive damages claim. California law holds that a defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication on the ground the plaintiff cannot produce evidence to prove a particular cause of action or claim for punitive damages may not merely rely on factually-devoid discovery responses or testimony but must go farther by affirmatively demonstrating the plaintiff has no reasonable possibility of obtaining the evidence necessary to establish a prima facie case. In Hagen v. Hickenbottom (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 168, the Sixth District Court of Appeal explained:

We cannot agree with those who may be understood to suggest that a moving defendant may shift the burden simply by suggesting the possibility that the plaintiff cannot prove its case. It is clear to us, from the requirement of the 1992 amendment that a defendant have “shown that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established” (Code Civ. Proc., §437c, former subd. (n)(2); Stats. 1992, ch. 1348, §1), that a defendant must make an affirmative showing in support of his or her motion.

Such a showing connotes something significantly more than simply “pointing out to the court” that “there is an absence of evidence”: before the burden of producing even a prima facie case should be shifted to the plaintiff in advance of trial, a defendant who cannot negate an element of the plaintiff’s case should be required to produce direct or circumstantial evidence that the plaintiff not only does not have but cannot reasonably expect to obtain a prima facie case. (Id., at 186 (underline added for emphasis).)

This same principle was reiterated by the California Supreme Court, confirming that a defendant cannot obtain summary judgment/adjudication based solely on the plaintiff not currently possessing the necessary evidence but instead must go farther to make an affirmative showing the plaintiff “cannot reasonably obtain” such evidence. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at 854-855.) Here, defendant Dalton’s moving papers are insufficient to establish that plaintiff Linder actually has no reasonable possibility of obtaining evidence which tends to show that the former was intoxicated at the time of the subject accident.

Thus, coupled with the fact that trial is set for 6/8/2026 and discovery remain open, this Court concludes plaintiff still possesses a reasonable possibility of obtaining evidence which tends to show that defendant Dalton was at the time of the subject accident “intoxicated” and/or “speeding” so as to support an award of punitive damages.

Disposition

For all the reasons explained above, the present motion for summary adjudication must be and hereby is DENIED in its entirety.

Moving defendant to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 09/25/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 53

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)