Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc.

34-2022-00314757-CU-DF-GDS: Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc. 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 25

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 25 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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

34-2022-00314757-CU-DF-GDS: Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc. 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 25

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Defendants Star Nursing Services, Inc. (“Star”), Nancy Frost, and Kimberly Joens (collectively, “Defendants”) for summary adjudication is ruled upon as follows.

Background/Factual Allegations

On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff Elite Healthcare Resources, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Elite”) commenced this action by filing its complaint alleging causes of action which included defamation, libel, slander, false light, interference with prospective advantage, unfair competition, and tortious interference with contract against Defendants. Plaintiff alleges it is a competitor with Star and that both provide nurses and other healthcare practitioners for placement in healthcare facilities. Plaintiff alleges Defendants made false statements about Plaintiff, including engaging in an online “smear campaign,” telling others not to use Plaintiff’s services, and falsely alleging Plaintiff stole Defendants’ client and healthcare provider lists.

On June 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint (“2AC”) alleging five causes of action: (1) libel per se; (2) slander per se; (3) intentional interference with prospective advantage; (4) negligent interference with prospective advantage; (5) unfair competition (Business and Professions Code section 17200).

Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that on May 4, 2021, “ELITE, received a phone call from the scheduler at Casa Coloma Healthcare Center. During this phone call, the scheduler at Casa Coloma Healthcare Center (“CCC”), informed ELITE that Defendant Joens, with the approval, consent, and at the instruction of Defendant Frost, had sent over an email to her as well as the center’s administrator – John Nickols – advising CCC not to use ELITE because various employees of ELITE were former employees of STAR and that ELITE had stolen STAR’s client and healthcare provider lists by and through the actions of ELITE’s current employees.” (2AC, ¶ 10.)

On May 7, 2021, “ELITE was informed in person by Westview Healthcare Center

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00314757-CU-DF-GDS: Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc. 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 25

(“WHC”), that STAR, by and through Defendant Joens, with the approval, consent, and at the instruction of Defendant Frost, had phoned her and advised her not to use ELITE for services because various employees of ELITE were former employees of STAR and that the employees of ELITE had stolen company files and client lists when they left and were not to be trusted.” (2AC, ¶ 12.)

On May 11, 2021, ELITE was informed, in person, by Avalon Healthcare Regional (“AHR”), that it was informed by Defendant Joens, acting and operating on behalf of STAR and at the instruction of Defendant Frost, that various employees of ELITE were former employees of STAR and that the employees of ELITE had stolen company files and client lists and that ABR should not to use ELITE. (2AC, ¶ 16.)

Plaintiff contends that each of the above representations that Defendants made to Casa Coloma Healthcare Center (“Casa Coloma”), Westview Healthcare Center (“Westview”), and Avalon Healthcare Regional (“Avalon”), were false. (2AC, ¶¶ 11, 13, 16.)

On March 1, 2023, Star filed a cross-complaint against Elite; Victoria Santos; and Tiffany Fabiani Renger.

On December 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal, dismissing the fifth cause of action for unfair competition (Business and Professions Code section 17200) against all defendants.

A trial date presently set in this matter for February 2, 2026.

Legal Standard

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment/adjudication, the Court engages in a threestep 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/adjudication (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/adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to such a motion 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.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00314757-CU-DF-GDS: Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc. 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 25

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its initial burden of production. A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiff's cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).) A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiff's cause of action. (Saelzer v.

Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780-781.) Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is required to show only that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 853-855.) Further, the initial burden requires a showing that the plaintiff “could not prevail on any theory raised by the pleadings.” (Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, 939-940.)

A party opposing summary judgment/adjudication has no evidentiary burden unless the moving party has first met his/her 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.) Only where the moving party 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 which precludes summary judgment/adjudication. (Salazar v.

Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1376; Binder, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 840.) The opposing party must present admissible evidence and may not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleading. (Ibid.) 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. (Miller v. Bechtel Corp. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 868, 874; Cortez v. Vogt (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 917, 925-926; see also, Salazar, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 1376; Brown v.

FSR Brokerage, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 766, 773.)

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court must “consider all of the evidence” and all of the “inferences” reasonably drawn therefrom (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(c)) and must view the evidence and inferences “in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843; see Ragland v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 182, 199.)

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 Court (“CRC”), rule 3.1350(b), which mandates that issues

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00314757-CU-DF-GDS: Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc. 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 25

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, before turning to the specific issues raised by this motion and the opposition, 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, supra, at p. 252, citing Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, Ch.10:95.1).)

Discussion

Through this motion, Defendants move for summary adjudication as to the following issues:

ISSUE 1: PLAINTIFF’S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NO MERIT.

ISSUE 2: PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NO MERIT.

ISSUE NO. 3: THERE IS NO MERIT TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00314757-CU-DF-GDS: Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc. 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 25

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200.

ISSUE NO. 4: THERE IS NO MERIT TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

(Ntc. Mot.)

In opposing the motion, Plaintiff does not raise any arguments regarding Defendants’ adjudication issues nos. 3 and 4. Rather, Plaintiff notes that it has dismissed its claims for unfair competition (Business & Professions Code section 17200) and injunctive relief. Based upon this representation, the Court need not consider Defendants’ adjudication issues nos. 3 and 4.

I. Adjudication Issue No. 1 - Intentional Interference with Prospective Advantage (Third Cause of Action).

The elements of the tort of intentional interference with a prospective advantage (“intentional interference”) are: “(1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.” (Korea Supply Co. v.

Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1153.) An action will lie whether the alleged tortfeasor relies on unlawful means or on lawful, but unjustified, means. (Lowell v. Mother’s Cake & Cookie Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 13, 18.) “Simply stated, the marketplace should not be immune from ethics.” (Institute of Veterinary Pathology, Inc. v. California Health Labs (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 111, 126.)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s third cause of action for intentional interference must fail as (a) Plaintiff cannot establish that Star’s actions were the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged harm; and further, that (b) Plaintiff cannot establish that it suffered any harm.

Causation. As to causation, a plaintiff must show that, but for the tortious interference, a reasonable probability existed that the prospective advantage would have been attained. (Youst v Longo (1987) 43 Cal.3d 64; Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311.)

Through the instant motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot prove that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00314757-CU-DF-GDS: Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc. 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 25

Defendants’ statements were “a substantial factor in the facilities’ decision to terminate their relationships with Plaintiff.” (Mov. MPA, p. 10:4-6.) In this regard, Defendants highlight their proffered undisputed material facts (“UMFs”) that “Avalon did not give a reason for terminating its relationship with Elite,” and that “Westview terminated its relationship with Elite because state laws changed and Elite was no longer able to provide the staff Westview needed.” (UMFs 14-15.) With this, Defendants conclude that Plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence that Defendants’ statements to these facilities were a substantial factor in their decision to terminate their relationship with Plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleges false statements were made to three separate businesses: Westview, Avalon, and also Casa Coloma. Indeed, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were fully aware that Plaintiff had business relationships with Casa Coloma, Westview, and Avalon, and such relationships were very likely to result in economically advantageous relationships between each of the same. (2AC, ¶ 68.) Defendants’ actions were intentionally undertaken to inflict harm on Plaintiff by impairing Plaintiff’s work in its profession and business, and interfering with Plaintiff’s relationship with Casa Coloma, Westview, and Avalon. (2AC, ¶ 72.)

Defendants’ acts, including statements to Casa Coloma, Westview, and Avalon resulted in an actual disruption of the beneficial economic relationship referenced above. (2AC, ¶ 73.) As a proximate result of this conduct, Plaintiff alleges that it has been damaged in “an amount currently unknown but which exact amount will be proven at the time of trial.” (2AC, ¶ 74.)

As the pleadings determine what issues are material in a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, the evidence must be directed to the claims or defenses raised in the pleadings. (Keniston v. American Nat’l Ins. Co. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 803, 812.) As stated above, the initial burden requires a showing that the plaintiff “could not prevail on any theory raised by the pleadings.” (Hawkins, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at pp. 939-940.) Summary adjudication requires disposition of an entire cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f)(1); Hindin v. Rust (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1256.)

Notably, Defendants’ fail to proffer any UMFs in their separate statement which dispose of Plaintiff’s allegations relating to Casa Coloma. Thus, as Defendants’ UMFs would not dispose of the entire cause of action, completely ignoring causation as to one of the alleged three business, Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication, on this ground, must be denied.

Further, the Court finds that from Defendants’ own proffered UMFs, viewing the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party, as the Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00314757-CU-DF-GDS: Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc. 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 25

must in this context, there appears a triable issue of material fact. Namely, Defendants proffer that “Star communicated with multiple facilities, including Avalon and Westview, about Elite’s solicitation of Star’s clients and candidates,” and that “[a]fter Star communicated with facilities about Elite’s conduct, several facilities terminated their relationship with Elite.” (UMFs 12-13.) Considering these UMFs, in the context of the allegations in the 2AC, and weighing them most favorably to Plaintiff, the Court finds that a triable issue exists as to whether Star’s communication with the certain facilities/businesses caused them to terminate their relationship with Plaintiff. The Court finds this to be additional grounds to deny the motion.

Damages. As in the tort of inducing breach of contract, a plaintiff alleging intentional interference with prospective advantage must prove that they suffered actual damages. (TransWorld Airlines, Inc. v. American Coupon Exchange, Inc. (9th Cir. 1990) 913 F.2d 676, 693.) As to this issue, Defendants argue that this case has been pending since January 2022, and while Plaintiff has had more than three years to gather evidence, at the time of filing this motion, Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that it suffered harm. (Mov. MPA, pp. 10:27-11:1.) In support, Defendants proffer that “Elite has not produced any evidence of damage.” (UMF 17.) This contention appears to primarily be supported by Plaintiff’s responses to Star’s propounded requests for production of documents.

The court finds that Defendants have necessarily failed to meet their initial burden. Defendants must support their argument with admissions or other admissible evidence showing that “plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 854, 865-66.) It is not enough for Defendant to show merely that Plaintiff “has no evidence” or, to date, has “not produced evidence” on an element of Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant must also produce evidence showing that Plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain evidence to support that claim. (Gaggero v.

Uma (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891; Zoran Corp. v. Chen (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 799, 808.) Relying on Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production of documents, and purported failure to produce evidence pertaining to damages, is not alone sufficient to establish that the Plaintiff cannot obtain evidence to support its claim. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 748.) As such, Defendants’ motion is DENIED on this ground as well.

II. Adjudication Issue No. 2 – Negligent Interference with Prospective Advantage (Fourth Cause of Action).

California courts recognize a cause of action for negligent interference with prospective

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00314757-CU-DF-GDS: Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc. 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 25

advantage. (J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory (1979) 24 Cal.3d 799, 803.) To establish negligent interference, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an economic relationship existed between the plaintiff and a third party containing a reasonably probable future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant knew of the relationship’s existence and was aware or should have been aware that failure to act with due care would interfere with the relationship and cause the plaintiff to lose the probable future economic benefit; (3) the defendant was negligent; and (4) such negligence caused damage to the plaintiff by actually interfering with or disrupting the relationship. (Venhaus v. Shultz (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1078; North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 764, 786.)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for negligent interference must fail as Plaintiff cannot prove: (a) the existence of a duty to care, (b) Star’s actions were the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged harm, and (c) Plaintiff suffered harm.

Duty of Care. Unlike intentional interference, the tort of negligent interference arises only when the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care. (J’Aire Corp., supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 803.) The duty is based on the existence of a special relationship. The existence of a special relationship is determined by analyzing the following criteria: (1) the degree to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff; (2) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff; (3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury; (4) the nexus between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury; (5) the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, if appropriate; and (6) the policy of preventing future harm. (Biakanja v Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650; see also J’Aire Corp., supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 805.)

In support of their position, Defendants contend that Plaintiff and Star were competitors (UMF 26), and thus, for this reason alone, Star did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care. (Mov. MPA, 11:18-25, citing, inter alia, Stolz v. Wong Communications L.P. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1811, 1825.)

Generally, competitors do not owe each other a duty of care. (Stolz, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 1825 [“The complaint did not allege such a duty, nor could it, since it was plain that plaintiff and defendants were competitors.”] Negligent interference requires an antecedent duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, which must exist independently of the interference itself. (LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 342.)

However, “[t]he tort of intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00314757-CU-DF-GDS: Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc. 12/29/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 25

advantage imposes liability for improper methods of disrupting or diverting the business relationship of another which fall outside the boundaries of fair competition.” (Settimo Associates v. Environ Systems, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 842, 845.) “Commonly included among improper means are actions which are independently actionable, violations of federal or state law or unethical business practices, e.g., violence, misrepresentation, unfounded litigation, defamation, trade libel or trade mark infringement.” (PMC, Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 579, 603, internal citation omitted, disapproved on other grounds in Korea Supply Co., supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 1159, fn. 11.)

Here, as highlighted above, Plaintiff alleges facts which fall outside the boundaries of fair competition. Indeed, Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of Defendants was independently wrongful because, Defendants engaged “in a campaign of defamation, slander, and derogation to purposely sabotage and hurt.” (2AC, ¶ 80.) Considering the allegations, the Court does not agree that based only on the fact that parties were competitors, without more, would dispose of Defendants duty of care. As such, Defendants’ motion is DENIED on this ground.

Causation and Damages. Because Defendants rely on essentially the same UMFs (UMFs 18-34) and the same arguments as were raised relating to intentional interference, for reasons further discussed above, Defendants’ motion is also DENIED on these grounds.

Disposition

Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is DENIED as set forth herein.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the 2AC is unopposed and GRANTED for the limited purposes appropriate for judicial notice.

The Court declines to rule on Defendants’ evidentiary objections as they were immaterial to its decision herein. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(q).)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)