Motion for Summary Judgment
The court declines to rule on the party’s objections as immaterial to the court’s disposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(q)). The court has considered and admitted all evidence that the court has identified above in this ruling.
Moving Defendant to give notice. 3 Conn Motion for Summary Judgment. vs. Balboa Defendants Balboa Bay Club Ventures, LLC and International Bay Clubs, LLC move for summary Bay judgment on the First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed by Plaintiff Robert L. Conn. For the Club Ventur following reasons, the motion is DENIED. es, LLC Defendants served the motion on Plaintiff by email on April 22, 2026 and served the separate statement on April 23, 2026. (ROAs 55, 61.) Although Plaintiff evidently had difficulty opening the electronic copies of the motion by email, the more important issue is whether service by email was proper.
Plaintiff in this matter is representing himself. California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251(c)(3)(B) provides that self-represented parties “are to be served by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service.” Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 provides for electronic service of documents in cases filed on or after January 1, 2019, but section 1010.6 subdivision (d)(4) states that local rules requiring electronic filing and service must make unrepresented persons exempt from mandatory electronic filing and service. Local Rule 352 encourages but not does not require self-represented parties to participate in electronic filing and service. Thus, service by email alone on Plaintiff is insufficient.
Defendants contend that “the remedy for a notice shortfall in summary-judgment practice is a continuance affording the full statutory notice period.” (ROA 63 at 2:21-22.) This is incorrect. (Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1268 [If the moving party does not provide sufficient notice, the notice period must begin anew. The court cannot cure this defect by continuing the hearing for the missing number of days.])
Defendants have not provided proof that Plaintiff has affirmatively consented to electronic service. Defendants have thus not provided proof of adequate notice of the motion.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Even if the Court were to overlook the service issue, the Court finds that Defendants did not meet their initial burden.
A “party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact . . . .” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfiel d Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the p osition of the party in question.” (Id. at 851.)
A defendant moving for summary judgment satisfies his or her initial burden by showing that one o r more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to th e cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”), § 437c(p)(2).) The scope of this burden is determined by the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 C al.App.3d 367, 381– 82 [pleadings serve as the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment motion]; 580 Folso m Associates v. Prometheus Development Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1, 18– 19 [respondent only required to defeat allegations reasonably contained in the complaint].) 12
Although Defendants styles their motion as a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, because Defendants’ motion papers do not comply with California Rule of Court 3.1350(b), the court must treat the motion solely as a motion for summary judgment. Rule 3.1350(b) states:
If made in the alternative, a motion for summary adjudication may make reference to and depend on the same evidence submitted in support of the summary judgment motion. If summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.
Defendants’ moving papers do not comply with this rule. The motion for summary judgment identifies three issues on which Defendants evidently seek summary adjudication. Their separate statement, however, does not repeat verbatim any of those issues identified in the motion. (See Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 743-44 (“A motion for summary adjudication tenders only those issues or causes of action specified in the notice of motion, and may only be granted as to the matters thus specified.
The movant must ‘state[] specifically in the notice of motion and ... repeat[], verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts,’ ‘the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty’ as to which summary adjudication is sought. (Former Cal. Rules of Court, rule 342(b); see now Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b).) The motion must be denied if the movant fails to establish an entitlement to summary adjudication of the matters thus specified; the court cannot summarily adjudicate other issues or claims, even if a basis to do so appears from the papers.”).)
Thus, to prevail on their motion, Defendants must demonstrate that they are entitled to summary judgment on all of the causes of action asserted against them.
Defendants have not done so. Indeed, Defendants do not even address the elements of any of the causes of action asserted in the FAC. Defendants do not address the elements of Plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of written contract, the second cause of action for conversion, or the third cause of action for financial elder abuse. Thus, Defendants did not meet their initial burden of showing that Plaintiff cannot establish at least one element of each of his causes of action.
Defendants shall give notice of this ruling. 4 InsZon Plaintiff InsZone Insurance Services, LLC, moves to compel further responses e Insur from Defendant Vincent A. Capizzi II to Form Interrogatories (Set One). For the following reasons, ance the motion is DENIED as moot. Service s, LLC vs. Plaintiff InsZone Insurance Services, LLC, moves to compel further responses Capizzi from Defendant Vincent A. Capizzi II to RFPs (Set One). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff InsZone Insurance Services, LLC, moves to compel further responses from Defendant Daybreak Services, Inc., dba Daybreak Insurance Services to Form Interrogatories (Set One). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED as moot.
13